Abandoning the Second Amendment


PDA






horge
December 27, 2005, 09:05 PM
I'm not an American.
I am however, largely the product of American colonialism,
and it is with no trifling affection that I regard the United States;
It is neither with minor concern that I observe recent trends in your country,
else I would not presume to post my thoughts here.
Bear with me, if you will.


"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."


To this foreigner, the Second Amendment is clearly framed to preserve
a necessary, well regulated militia. It refers to a separate natural
"right to keep and bear arms".

The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed
on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom.

The Second Amendment is notable in that it not only exalts the
people's ability to collectively take up arms in defense of freedom,
but by default calls on the people to maintain said ability.

It is thus a citizen's duty to keep and bear, because that preserves
what the Second Amendment seeks to preserve: readiness.

US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
not a suitable weapon for use by a militia, and therefore was not protected
by the Second Amendment. I feel the Court was incompetent to form any
opinion on what constitutes a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

It was incompetent because the nature and needs of war change rapidly.
Since one cannot predict what weapons the future will bring, nor what
war will be like in days to come, it is foolish to set into stone
what types of weapons are or aren't suitable for militia use.

A lot has changed since the 1700's, and troops no longer face off by forming
ordered lines. If war were to visit the native soil of the United States,
there would likely be some very ugly house-to-house fighting,
in multistory structures and very tight spaces involving many innocents,
encouraging the use of short firearms and even handguns.

Shortened shotguns. Handguns. Battle rifles. Crew-served weapons.
Ownership of such weapons and maintaining proficiency in their use qualifies
as necessary towards individual readiness to fight in a militia.

There will still be conventional battles, usually on foreign shores.
That is what a professional Armed Forces are for.
However, in the modern age, the enemy is increasingly a coward.
The enemy hides among civilians, and targets them,
violating all accepted conventions of war.
The enemy will be insidious, avoiding direct conflict with your military
and law enforcement, while attacking the foundations of America.

Terrorism is now recognizable as an act of war.
At what point does foreign-state sponsored crime constitute an act of war?
At what point does foreign-state sponsored illegal immigration constitute an invasion?

If/when unconventional aggressions reach a critical level, there may well
be fighting on US soil. Serious fighting that may preclude rapidly bringing
the full weight of your vaunted military to bear upon it.

Recent history has suggested how even the most powerful military on the planet
can be stretched too thin; how the most powerful nation on the planet
can be too slow to respond to massive calamity. The military, like disaster relief,
is a branch of centralized bureaucracy. Law enforcement is a more local
organ, but is often not sized to meet massive conflict.

In the towns and villages, in the boroughs, districts and slums,
the common people -and only the common people- are near enough
and numerous enough to make a difference immediately.
They must be ready to organize and take up arms at a moment's notice,
in defense of all that they hold dear --freedom most of all.


By propounding endlessly on a right to keep and bear arms, as
essentially a selfish/personal liberty, Americans may be missing the point
of the Second Amendment. .

Again, there is an independent "right to keep and bear", otherwise
the Second Amendment would not have referred to it.

The Second Amendment howevermentions a "right to keep and bear arms",
(and warns the Federal government not to mess with that right)
because the Second Amendment is also a call to Americans
--all Americans-- to maintain their readiness.

A readiness to provide and take up arms in organized defense of flag;
to take up arms in organized defense of freedom.
If your country's Constitution exalts and calls for such readiness,
then look about: does the word 'abandonment' come to mind?




Deeply concerned,
horge

If you enjoyed reading about "Abandoning the Second Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbt2001
December 27, 2005, 09:19 PM
I think that we all agree with what you said here....

The militia is clearly understood to be the citizenry.

ceetee
December 27, 2005, 09:45 PM
Words more true have seldom been penned. Thanks, Horge!

BTW, here's a question for the legal scholars amongst us... In light of the fact that our troops do indeed use sawed off shotguns in battle (proving them to be suitable for use by the "Militia"), what would the chances be of getting Miller overturned?

Dave Markowitz
December 27, 2005, 09:47 PM
Horge,

Well said. I wish more Americans understood this.

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 09:53 PM
Rightly said.

In light of the times we should all be equipped for "asymmetric warfare."

Logistics
December 27, 2005, 10:07 PM
horge,

You are a very very wise man. Please post more often.

Kim
December 27, 2005, 10:22 PM
A man after my own heart. Wish we had a nation full of them.:(

Waitone
December 27, 2005, 10:33 PM
Being an American is a state of mind. You qualify.

Standing Wolf
December 27, 2005, 11:00 PM
Well said, friend!

sm
December 27, 2005, 11:02 PM
+1

Harve Curry
December 27, 2005, 11:04 PM
+100 Jorge,
There are Americans on this very board that cannot grasp what you know for all the tea in China. Thank you.

Spot77
December 27, 2005, 11:08 PM
Horge for President!:cool:

cz75bdneos22
December 27, 2005, 11:08 PM
Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..
2." a lot has changed since 1700's", yes it has..we have USAF, States National Guard, National, State and Local Law Enforcement..if this is not enough to address threats by irregulars, then heaven help us...because no rag tag assembly of citizenry will aid in this one no matter what you say/ arms yourself with..
3. your romantiziced notion of the second amendment is shared by many...War is not something to be taken lightly as we have found out throughout numerous "conflicts" since WWII...but you just have to experience the "dogs of war" to see that arms in and of themselves do not "peace" make, just the opposite..Sir, even warriors have codes of honor, we don't have to debase ourselves in the pursuit of "justice". As we now know, "War" is being fought for a number of contradictory reasons..political, economical, moral...it's nice to make decisions from the safety zone..War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!...we seem to think that might makes right, but they aren't buying our "ideals"..."they" are just in fear of being obliterated if they don't comply witht the misguided demands of the U.S....our idea that somehow "they" cannot coexist without our intervention in their affairs is just the ticket we are buying..as i've said before, "they" have dealt/lived with ethnic or racial conflict for millenia...but We know better...so much for the high road... YMMV

horge
December 28, 2005, 02:04 AM
Thanks to all for being so gentle with me. ;)


Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..
2." a lot has changed since 1700's", yes it has..we have USAF, States National Guard, National, State and Local Law Enforcement..if this is not enough to address threats by irregulars, then heaven help us...because no rag tag assembly of citizenry will aid in this one no matter what you say/ arms yourself with..
3. your romantiziced notion of the second amendment is shared by many...War is not something to be taken lightly as we have found out throughout numerous "conflicts" since WWII...but you just have to experience the "dogs of war" to see that arms in and of themselves do not "peace" make, just the opposite..Sir, even warriors have codes of honor, we don't have to debase ourselves in the pursuit of "justice". As we now know, "War" is being fought for a number of contradictory reasons..political, economical, moral...it's nice to make decisions from the safety zone..War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!...we seem to think that might makes right, but they aren't buying our "ideals"..."they" are just in fear of being obliterated if they don't comply witht the misguided demands of the U.S....our idea that somehow "they" cannot coexist without our intervention in their affairs is just the ticket we are buying..as i've said before, "they" have dealt/lived with ethnic or racial conflict for millenia...but We know better...so much for the high road... YMMV

Hello sir,

Fortress America, what?
America has already been attacked in a manner that bypasses
the conventional forces you cite in your 1. and 2. I imagine that I offered
sufficient distinction between conventional and assymetrical warfare.
There are so many other ways to infiltrate and attack America from within.

In 3., you seem to touch on several bases within the same long breath,
but with respect to overseas conventional war and warriors,
and the (im)morality thereof. I do not recall advocating a citizen-militia
for the purpose of prosecuting a war overseas. It is defense of US soil
that I was discussing, and I cannot find what 'comment' of mine
you 'disagree with' here.

Thank you for offering that "War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!"
Having been caught in such situations (and worse) in my country,
I'll... well, thank you!

:)
horge

cz75bdneos22
December 28, 2005, 03:45 AM
Thanks to all for being so gentle with me. ;)



Hello sir,

Fortress America, what?
America has already been attacked in a manner that bypasses
the conventional forces you cite in your 1. and 2. I imagine that I offered
sufficient distinction between conventional and assymetrical warfare.
There are so many other ways to infiltrate and attack America from within.

In 3., you seem to touch on several bases within the same long breath,
but with respect to overseas conventional war and warriors,
and the (im)morality thereof. I do not recall advocating a citizen-militia
for the purpose of prosecuting a war overseas. It is defense of US soil
that I was discussing, and I cannot find what 'comment' of mine
you 'disagree with' here.

Thank you for offering that "War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!"
Having been caught in such situations (and worse) in my country,
I'll... well, thank you!

:)
horge


Hi from Texas, aking kaibigan...

1."America's been attacked", we agree on principle just have differing perspectives on the greater issue of "War"...while you seem focused on the concreteness of "war"...i take a more abstract position when it comes to the finality of "war"..."conventional" war\, i can distinguish also. the fact remains that even in War, there is a rule of combat..you know abou it, no need to repeat..otherwise if we are heading towards a least common denominator-barbarism(sp) towards our aggressors, then let's just "nuke" everybody that does us wrong and to hell with everyone ..."Let God, sort em' out"..he, he!! "there are many ways to infiltrate/perpetuate terrorism" We agree again, and you couldn't be more correct as to the "within" part...Domestic terrorists whether by ignorance or stupidity with firearms have been wrecking havock as of lately in our Homeland...no need to go far looking for "terrorists" justified/unjustified abroad or overseas...just look around you and open your eyes...if you get my drift..
2.neither did i i was referring to your idolizing of the term "militia"...i know what a "militia" means. however i don't ascribe to a modern idealistic/utopian version of it..i empathize with you as far as your having been exposed to the bestiality of war..I hope and wish to NEVER again experience here in America the misery, pain and trauma that is "War".. I care about people and unfortunately the innocent victims in all this are the same people we are supposedly trying to influence with our misdirected efforts to bring "freedom" to their "erroneous" ways of life...i hope i was a a bit clearer stating our differences.

P.S.
i will be out of town for the New Year's break, so a happy and peaceful 2006, Nos vemos..Y'all.

cz75bdneos22
December 28, 2005, 04:04 AM
it was argued for a reason...since the second ammendment guarantees the "keep and bear arms" clause...which i agree to an extent...ever since the inception of a National Armed Forces the "militia" became a moot point...that is why ever since the turn of the 20th century, after the passage of the Old "Wild" West era...iit was in the first three decades that the states acted to restrict by law both the keeping and the bearing of arms to those who would comply with the parameters set forth by the individual states...also, contributing to the discrepancy in allowing a CCW to be issued/reciprocated among the states...it's late ...and i'm leaving in a few hours...see ya!

IndianaDean
December 28, 2005, 04:27 AM
Horge, I second all of the positive responses to your excellent post!

jeepmor
December 28, 2005, 05:37 AM
Hogue, very well put. I think I'm gonna print that out and put it on my cube. It captures the spirit and necessity of the militia, particularly considering when the document was written. I think some others may be interpreting your words as a fantasy by todays PC times. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a check and balance. We, as citizens, get to keep arms, because arms are what provided our freedom. And if this government we made here becomes the one we just disbanded from, arms and organization is what's gonna bring it back in line. A time when law was the gun and organization.

And very key in my view, it was the hunting arms that provided food, that also, when properly assembled en masse, ensured our freedom. That and several month trips across the ocean for reports, supplies troops and all that hindering our foes.

As I grew up, I was taught, in school history class, that the 2nd Amendment created an atmosphere to the rest of the world that they can't just roll in on some isolated coastline or border in droves and not expect to be in the sights of some keen American game marksmen with a LOT of rounds that happens to live on our border. And he'll contact his friends, and organize, in droves....

Back to my Hogue for mayor angle....;) The town could have a fire horn for something like that.


jeepmor

Colonel
December 28, 2005, 07:32 AM
Horge-

I agree with most of what you say above, with the most notable exception of the following:

US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
not a suitable weapon for use by a militia, and therefore was not protected
by the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, U.S. v. Miller is widely misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

Some historical background:

Jack Miller was charged with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 for illegally transporting a short-barrelled shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas. At trial, Miller's attorney filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the NFA1934 violated the Second Amendment. The judge agreed, the charges against Miller were dismissed, Miller was released and he then disappeared.

The government then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, where Miller's attorney did not appear, meaning that the Supreme Court heard only the government's side of the case (the prosecution). The Supreme Court held, in effect, that the Second Amendment protects militia-type arms, and that in the absence of any evidence in the record about whether the gun involved (a sawed-off shotgun) was a militia-type arm – since Miller's attorneys weren't there to offer any evidence to support such a claim – the Court said, in effect, that they didn't hold the NFA1934 to be violative of the Second Amendment and sent the case back to the federal district court. In the meantime, Miller (an informant snitch) had been murdered, presumably by those he had snitched upon, so the whole thing in effect died.

In other words, as J.R. Labbe wrote in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (August 5, 2001):

“The Supremes never said the lower court decision was wrong. What they did was send the case back to the trial courts to answer whether a short-barreled shotgun is the type of firearm that was useful for the militia.

“The court did not question the individual right to keep and bear arms as asserted in Miller's original trial. If the court believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed only a right of the states, the justices would have dismissed his claim for lack of standing.

“In fact, the court said in Miller that the physically capable adult males who were called upon to act together as a militia for the common defense of the country are expected to supply their own firearms.

“How can they do that if they don't have an individual right to own them in the first place?”

In fact, in U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court said “the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators ... show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

I hope this helps clarify U.S. v. Miller for anyone out there who might not have this information.

Col.

Harve Curry
December 28, 2005, 10:25 AM
Col.,
Thanks for that info.

yonderway
December 28, 2005, 11:28 AM
ever since the inception of a National Armed Forces the "militia" became a moot point

Respectfully but strongly disagree.

Our monstrous "standing army" (comprising all of the US armed forces, National Guard, reserve units, etc) are all controlled by the federal government. The impetus behind Amendment II had as much to do with putting down tyrrany as it did putting down a foreign invasion.

Our government has been flirting more and more with despotism, which has been at least as true of this administration as the one before it. I'm not saying it's time to take up arms or anything like that, but there is a definite trend underway, and at some point if the federal government does not significantly deviate from its current path it will contradict the constitution so strongly as to stir up a sense of duty in many common Americans that will have been sufficiently angered to take up arms against a tyrant. When the interests of ultra-liberal groups like the ACLU start to mesh with the interests of ultra-conservative groups like the GOA and the John Birch Society, it's enough to make any observer sit up and take notice.

The USA Patriot Act was a warning shot across your bow. The revelation of blanket warrantless searches on domestic email and phone calls (supposedly with the other end being an international source, but I think on closer examination we'll likely see domestic/domestic communications sniffed as well) should be enough to have mainstream people start reconsidering any thoughts of the contemporary militia being unneeded.

It is a point of fact, via treaty, that our barriers with Mexico will be breaking down in the year 2010. It is very likely that Senor Bush's "guest worker program" will become obsolete before the 6 year visa is expired, because by then Mexicans will be allowed to cross our borders legally back and forth as they please. Our sovereignty is being carved up. When we have a North American counterpart to the EU, how long do you think our RKBA will last when our sovereignty is shared with Canada and Mexico?

Maybe the tinfoil hat is on too tight, who knows, but it all warrants a heightened sense of awareness about where our Republic is now and where it is going.

horge
December 28, 2005, 06:46 PM
The Supreme Court held, in effect, that the Second Amendment protects militia-type arms, and that in the absence of any evidence in the record about whether the gun involved (a sawed-off shotgun) was a militia-type arm ... the Court said, in effect, that they didn't hold the NFA1934 to be violative of the Second Amendment and sent the case back to the federal district court.

Thank you for pointing that out! :)
The Supreme Court indeed would not distinguish if sawed-off shotguns
were 'militia-type' weapons, citing lack of evidence:

''(i)n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is
not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''


Ultimately, the tragic failure remains:
that of assuming such a distinction could be made, of whether a weapon
is "militia-type" or not, even with Miller's representation present.

As I said, the nature and needs of war can change rapidly, often demanding
the unforeseen, and sometimes requiring the nearly-forgotten.
For this reason I believe it is dangerous to limit the range of weapons
that American citizens can develop and maintain proficiency with.

Again, thanks for bringing more clarity to the issue :)


horge

Lobotomy Boy
December 28, 2005, 07:28 PM
Our government has been flirting more and more with despotism, which has been at least as true of this administration as the one before it. I'm not saying it's time to take up arms or anything like that, but there is a definite trend underway, and at some point if the federal government does not significantly deviate from its current path it will contradict the constitution so strongly as to stir up a sense of duty in many common Americans that will have been sufficiently angered to take up arms against a tyrant.

When (not if) this happens, some on this list have argued that the federalo government will be too powerful and a citizen militia will stand no chance. That is not true. The federal government is only as strong as its military forces. Should the Posse Comitatus Act be overturned (remember Bush asked to have it repealed in order to fight a war on avian flu just last month) and the federal government be given the authority to turn military forces against the U.S. population, the military will disintigrate. The majority of U.S. soldiers will not take up arms against their fellow Americans. Think about it--in this instance the enemy will not be nameless people who speak another language but the fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, and even grandfathers of the soldiers themselves. There will be mass desertions if the federal government were to order soldiers to attack U.S. citizens.

And those citizens won't be sitting ducks for the ragged forces that remain in the service of the federal government. They will be heavily armed, well-trained, resourceful, and most importantly, they will posess intimate knowledge of the environment in which any fighting might occur. Think about the Russian invasion of Finland on a much larger scale. The Russians are stilled scared witless about the prospect of going back into Finland. I suspect that should things progress along current lines, the federal government would be as successful in subduing the American people as Russia was in subduing Finland.

ceetee
December 28, 2005, 09:08 PM
... Should the Posse Comitatus Act be overturned ...and the federal government be given the authority to turn military forces against the U.S. population, the military will disintigrate. The majority of U.S. soldiers will not take up arms against their fellow Americans. Think about it--in this instance the enemy will not be nameless people who speak another language but the fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, and even grandfathers of the soldiers themselves. There will be mass desertions if the federal government were to order soldiers to attack U.S. citizens.


I have to disagree on this one. If (when) it comes to that, it won't come as one giant leap into totalitarianism. It'll start (as most things do) with baby steps. Probably something on the order of using active-duty military to patrol our borders. Something almost everybody would cheer about. Then, using military CID to aid in investigating things like smuggling, or illegal immigration. Security at seaports. Then airports. Then assorted "essential" Federal buildings like courthouses. High profile terrorist targets like monuments, and power generating plants. Bridges. Shopping malls. Gas stations.

Soon, people will be required to carry "travel identification". People will start to be "disappeared".

All for the good of the people...

Lobotomy Boy
December 28, 2005, 11:16 PM
Ceetee, the scenario you describe already appears to be happening.

horge
January 30, 2006, 10:14 AM
Forget the foreign-state-sponsored illegal immigration
constituting an invasion...

You actually HAVE heavily-armed foreign troops on US soil, scaring off your Border Patrol:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=179039


You are the richest, most powerful nation on earth.
You have laws that allow your citizens to arm themselves.
Your Second Amendment argues a DUTY to be armed and ready.


I'm puzzled, what is your government thinking?
:(

beerslurpy
January 30, 2006, 10:20 AM
Horge,

Well said. I wish more Americans understood this.
They are pretty adept at relearning it when they need to. Plenty of people got shot in chocolate city during the hurricane.

Waitone
January 30, 2006, 10:40 AM
Horge, there exists a tipping point at which the ruling class will face uncompromising opposition to the insanity of what we call immigration policy. I think the ruling class understands they face trouble. What I don't think they understand is immigration insanity is a symbol for a lot of other repressed issues the taxpaying class suffer under. We are facing a period of time where severe political and social realignments could easily take place.

Maxwell
January 30, 2006, 11:39 AM
US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
not a suitable weapon for use by a militia

Actually the military does use sawed off (short) shotguns, as do the police.
Its a suitable weapon for war meaning its also suitable for any warrior.
I find this case funny because anti-guns also make the case that civilians shouldnt have military weapons either.

The underlying point of their arguments is to take away all guns from anyone they can, even LE and the military when its possible.

This particular case is an argument they dont want to follow because it makes things far worse for the anti's if they succeed. Even in a suppor role to the federal military, a proper militia must be allowed a large list of weapons thats currently not legal.
The "sporting purpose" and "only old guns" clauses work more in their favor if they can keep them in place, despite the fact their 100% against the constitutional right we're supposed to have.

striker3
January 30, 2006, 12:45 PM
the federal government be given the authority to turn military forces against the U.S. population, the military will disintigrate. The majority of U.S. soldiers will not take up arms against their fellow Americans. Think about it--in this instance the enemy will not be nameless people who speak another language but the fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, and even grandfathers of the soldiers themselves. There will be mass desertions if the federal government were to order soldiers to attack U.S. citizens.

I think that the chance of the military turning on their fellow Americans is a real threat. So many of them are not educated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and have no desire to learn the truth. They believe in the chain of command to a fault. They think that anything or anyone the government says is an enemy, is. Hell, almost all of them think the Patriot Act is a great idea! Even the ones who work with the NSA themselves think that warrantless phone taps are an asset and to Hell what the Constituition says about it.

Now I am not saying that they will definetly turn against fellow Americans, but I would not so casually rule it out either. It is an eventuality and possiblity that needs to be thought about and dealt with. Remember, the largest threat to America will always come form within...

antarti
January 30, 2006, 01:14 PM
I think that the chance of the military turning on their fellow Americans is a real threat.

I would have thought the Civil War, and especially the Bonus Army smackdown (soldier vs. veteran), etc. would have put all the wondering about this issue to rest. Enough of them will take orders to make for a real fighting force, with superior equipment and logistics. History repeats.

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 30, 2006, 01:25 PM
Actually the military does use sawed off (short) shotguns, as do the police.
Its a suitable weapon for war meaning its also suitable for any warrior.
I find this case funny because anti-guns also make the case that civilians shouldnt have military weapons either.

One of the biggest problems with Miller is that it was a dead case, literally. Miller himself was dead, and his attorneys had zero interest in the case, and the supremes wished to spend as little time as absolutely possible on the case in order to move on to other more "live" issues.

So the Supremes said: "The military doesn't use sawed off shotguns" and no one cared to challenge them on this.

IIRC, Miller's statement was essentially a single sheet of paper.

I do not believe it will be re-examined anytime soon.

Waitone
January 30, 2006, 01:28 PM
I think that the chance of the military turning on their fellow Americans is a real threat. So many of them are not educated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and have no desire to learn the truth. They believe in the chain of command to a fault.I go one step further. "Professionalism" has gone from a work attribute to a precept of morality. It is ok to do <insert action of choice> as long as you do it professionally. The Einsatzgruppen during WWII was a professional organization.

longeyes
January 30, 2006, 01:46 PM
Not to worry. The Mayan calendar ends in 2012. Relax. Carpe diem.

Manedwolf
January 30, 2006, 02:35 PM
Well said. Very well said.

And it may well come to that. If terrorists come here and decide to engage in combat, simultaneously, in malls, shopping centers across the country, in drive-bys in suburbs, to truly try to "terrorize" the population...who will defend against them?

Will it be the police, suddenly overwhelmed and outgunned, who can't be everywhere at once? Will it be the military, already stretched thin and unable to react that quickly?

Or will it be the CCW with a Glock in their pocket, a S&W on their hip, a 1911 in their waistband, or the owner of an SKS, an AR, Winchester 30-30, an 870, an antique Garand or 98K who know how to use them...that might need to STOP people trying to kill their fellow citizens, neighbors, all of that?

In an age of asymmetric warfare, when an enemy could be anywhere, could target any nonmilitary group of civilians, wouldn't you want as many as possible of your "forces" to be around as well? People who do not ever want to have to do such a thing, but...if it happens, are ready to defend their fellow citizens?

Manedwolf
January 30, 2006, 02:41 PM
I think that the chance of the military turning on their fellow Americans is a real threat. So many of them are not educated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and have no desire to learn the truth. They believe in the chain of command to a fault. They think that anything or anyone the government says is an enemy, is. Hell, almost all of them think the Patriot Act is a great idea! Even the ones who work with the NSA themselves think that warrantless phone taps are an asset and to Hell what the Constituition says about it.

Now I am not saying that they will definetly turn against fellow Americans, but I would not so casually rule it out either. It is an eventuality and possiblity that needs to be thought about and dealt with. Remember, the largest threat to America will always come form within...

I doubt that the actual enlisted military would ever turn on their own communities. They ARE middle America. When you see a soldier on the news saying "I Think That Everything Is Great. Freedom is On The March"...they're forbidden from criticizing the commander in chief, and they'd likely be subject to reprisals or punishment if they said something negative. At the least, their career might come to a halt, rankwise.

The ones I worry about are the most extreme sorts of private contract mercenaries. Not the sort who are vets making money doing escort jobs, but the sort who ENJOY killing.

What would the founding fathers have thought if they knew we'd employ our own version of Hessians?

Manedwolf
January 30, 2006, 02:48 PM
Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..

War DID come to the US. Not the old formalized storming-beaches sort, no. This is a different sort. Asymmetrical warfare.

The next "beach head" might be a group of terrorists already here opening up with machine guns in a large mall, in which case, it'd fall to police AND nearby CCWs to take them down if possible.

But it is war.

Zedicus
January 30, 2006, 10:17 PM
Forget the foreign-state-sponsored illegal immigration
constituting an invasion...

You actually HAVE heavily-armed foreign troops on US soil, scaring off your Border Patrol:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=179039


You are the richest, most powerful nation on earth.
You have laws that allow your citizens to arm themselves.
Your Second Amendment argues a DUTY to be armed and ready.


I'm puzzled, what is your government thinking?
:(

horge, not a day goes buy that 90+% of us don't wonder the same exact thing....
we are doing what we can, but the majority of it is for naught as we also have people in our country who are intent on systematically destroying the USA from the inside.

those people are who we call "Liberals" and are little more than a Bizzare mix of Communists and Fascists.

CAnnoneer
January 31, 2006, 12:35 AM
those people are who we call "Liberals" and are little more than a Bizzare mix of Communists and Fascists.

Precisely. The one thing they agree upon is their hate of free America. So, they both sabotage the status quo in the hope of fomenting their own wet dreams of unsustainable societies.

Graystar
January 31, 2006, 09:05 AM
Unfortunately, U.S. v. Miller is widely misunderstood and/or misrepresented.
I agree. And it seems to continue.

“The Supremes never said the lower court decision was wrong. What they did was send the case back to the trial courts to answer whether a short-barreled shotgun is the type of firearm that was useful for the militia.”
This is a major misunderstanding. Do you really believe that the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility, threw it collective hands in the air and said, “aw hell we don’t know...YOU figure it out”?? The Supreme Court does no such thing.

The Court did NOT send anything back to be answered. It provided the final ruling on the issue.

The state posed several lines of reasoning in its brief, one being the length of the weapon. From the opinion, it is clear that the court based its decision on this point.

The opinion contains THREE excerpts from militia acts, all noting the type of weapon militiamen were expected to possess, and the length of the barrel. All excerpts indicated that long-barreled weapons were to be borne by militiamen. THIS is the reason why the court found “no evidence” that a short-barreled weapon was a weapon of the militia...because existing law defining the weapons of militiamen called for long guns.

At the time of the ruling, there was no argument and no evidence that Miller could have provided that would have changed the outcome. And please remember that the so-called short-barreled Trench gun actually had a barrel length of 20 inches, longer than the 18 inch limit imposed by the NFA.

striker3
January 31, 2006, 11:59 AM
I doubt that the actual enlisted military would ever turn on their own communities. They ARE middle America. When you see a soldier on the news saying "I Think That Everything Is Great. Freedom is On The March"...they're forbidden from criticizing the commander in chief, and they'd likely be subject to reprisals or punishment if they said something negative. At the least, their career might come to a halt, rankwise.

The ones I worry about are the most extreme sorts of private contract mercenaries. Not the sort who are vets making money doing escort jobs, but the sort who ENJOY killing.

What would the founding fathers have thought if they knew we'd employ our own version of Hessians?

I am sorry if I am bringing this off topic, but I have to disagree with you Manedwolf. The enlisted in the military are the more dangerous threat because they are the most easily fooled. They will not feel that they are fighting their countrymen, they will be told that they are fighting terrorists that threaten the government of their country. A government that they believe EMBODIES their country. The Americans they will be fighting will become nothing but targets, and it is easier to kill targets than people.

Those in the military who realize the truth will be branded as traitors and easily suppressed. As was noted earlier, just remember the Bonus Army incident. These were war veterans that were killed and run off by a military just a few short years after they had themselves served.

Waitone
January 31, 2006, 12:14 PM
Striker3, at first blush I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Then I took a look at your profile. Now you've got my interest. Would you please elaborate on your assessment?

Lobotomy Boy
January 31, 2006, 12:27 PM
My parents both came from large rural families, and I have over 100 first cousins, ranging in age from 40 to 80. Many of them have kids in the military, and for the most part these are good, smart kids. The area in which I grew up would probably be one of the first to reach some sort of tipping point if things got bad enough (they're a lot closer to that point than you might imagine right now). These are rugged, resourceful, extremely independent-minded folks and they are not taking the increasingly regulated life they are being forced to lead very well. These people tolerate a great deal of inconvenience and sacrifice in order to live in such an isolated part of the world. If they wanted someone telling them what to do and where they could go, they'd succumb to the big-wage jobs offered in metro areas. These folks are also more heavily armed than most European armies, and they're highly skilled at using their weapons.

As I said, I see my hometown residents and people just like them all across the U.S. as the first to take up arms if they felt that we had reached a tipping point. Given the demographics of such regions and the advantages afforded by intimate knowledge of the terrain and environment, I suspect they'd be as successful as the Finns were in beating back the Russians. (One Finnish farmer with a deer rifle and a pair of cross-country skis could hold off a Russian battalion for an entire morning. They'd snipe a half dozen officers and be back at the farm in time for chores.)

Perhaps my view of the caliber of our armed forces is skewed by the high quality of my friends and relatives who are serving, but I can't imagine too many soldiers from such rural backgrounds would fight against their families back home. My bet is that there would be a mass desertion of soldiers with rural backgrounds.

Forgive my anti-urban bias, but having lived half my life on a farm and half in the city, it's my observation that urban youth are too incompetent to pour urine from a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. (And I'm not talking race here-white boys from the city strike me as equally as useless as kids from any other indiginous ethnic group. Immigrant kids might be an exception. The immigrant kids I meet generally seem to be pretty resourceful, making me think that many of them have rural backgrounds.)The urban youth might comprise the bulk of our armed forces, given the basic demographics of our country, but my own prejiduce makes me think that the kids with rural backgrounds are by far the most useful and resourceful, and that the urban kids who remained in the military would be best used for cannon fodder.

I may be completely insane here, but I wouldn't recommend poking the rural population of the U.S. too hard or you may find out I'm telling the truth the hard way.

hugh damright
January 31, 2006, 01:28 PM
The Framers believed that a standing army might turn against the people. After all, they had fought off their own British Army. And the Framers declared that a standing army was a danger to liberty, and I reckon that's still true here and now.

They said that, instead of a standing army, the proper defense of a free State is militia. Some Founders were even concerned about the militia, and that the federal power over the militia might result in the US sending militia from one State into another.

I suppose it's easier for yankees and Californians to believe that the military would not turn on them. As a Southerner, I know damn well they will come. When my Granddaddy was a little boy, he hid under his bed, because the yankees were coming. He wasn't pretending, they really came.

Lobotomy Boy
January 31, 2006, 05:22 PM
How many soldiers in the Union Army from Confederate states stayed in the Union Army once the S hit the F? My guess is that most soldiers from southern states high-tailed it back across the Mason-Dixon line as fast as they could run.

Thain
January 31, 2006, 05:49 PM
Under the laws of my State, all males between the ages of 18 and 44 are members of the militia. This is automatic, and happens as soon as your 18th birthday rolls around... the well regulated (meaning: trained) part is up to us however.

publius
January 31, 2006, 10:47 PM
Ultimately, the tragic failure remains:
that of assuming such a distinction could be made, of whether a weapon
is "militia-type" or not, even with Miller's representation present.

Welcome, horge. Your posts are relentlessly polite!

You bring up an interesting point, but as Graystar noted, making that distinction is an activity that predates Miller by quite a few years.

publius
January 31, 2006, 10:59 PM
The opinion contains THREE excerpts from militia acts, all noting the type of weapon militiamen were expected to possess, and the length of the barrel. All excerpts indicated that long-barreled weapons were to be borne by militiamen. THIS is the reason why the court found “no evidence” that a short-barreled weapon was a weapon of the militia...because existing law defining the weapons of militiamen called for long guns.

US vs Miller (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html) excerpts:

Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a "good fixed musket," not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:

That every able-bodied Male Person, being [p181] a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . .

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes) declared,

.....

Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [p182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.

The second of those makes no reference to length, and the others do (note the dates) only because they were trying to ensure that the militiamen possessed a sufficiently effective weapon.

That's the question. Will it effectively kill Redcoats (or whomever might constitute the current threat)? The answer with respect to sawed off shotguns, or almost any modern gun, is yes. Some would be more effective than others.

But, as horge pointed out, that is really a question best answered by individual citizens, based on the situations in which they find themselves. I don't think that the Court was suggesting we should all have muskets of not less than bastard musket bore. They were suggesting we should all have effective weapons. What is an effective weapon? You'll know it when you need it, as horge said.

Graystar
January 31, 2006, 11:40 PM
The second of those makes no reference to lengthNo it doesn't. But the reference firearms, muskets and firelocks, are long guns. Notice that flintlocks are not specified.

That's the question. Will it effectively kill RedcoatsNo. That’s not the question. The Court cannot entertain questions that it is not asked. The feds argued that a short-barreled shotgun is not a weapon of the militia. The Court looked and, as they said, found no evidence to contradict. The excerpts you provided comprise the evidence that they did find. That is why there is no way Miller could have won. The issue was answered and closed. It could not have been revisited.

publius
January 31, 2006, 11:45 PM
That darn Miller! If only he had had a machine gun.:what: ;)

publius
January 31, 2006, 11:46 PM
At the time of the ruling, there was no argument and no evidence that Miller could have provided that would have changed the outcome. And please remember that the so-called short-barreled Trench gun actually had a barrel length of 20 inches, longer than the 18 inch limit imposed by the NFA.

An 18 inch one would be just as appropriate for the same military purpose, would it not?

Kodiaz
January 31, 2006, 11:52 PM
Miller was a poor guy with a still. The ATF found his still but it was nonfunctional so one of those guys arrests him for his sawed off shotgun under the new at that time law. He gets a pro bono lawyer(no right to a lawyer back then the state didn't pay) this lawyer beats the case in local federal court. While the lawyer is out of town papers come back for him to file a brief for the Supreme court. Well he wasn't paid and when he got back it was too late. The court hears only the prosecutor's argument and they find Miller guilty. Miller is never seen again so he does no jail time. The 34 NFA stands because no court ever accepts a hearing for this again.

Amazing isn't it.

publius
January 31, 2006, 11:52 PM
The Court did NOT send anything back to be answered. It provided the final ruling on the issue.

US vs Miller (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html):

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Graystar
February 1, 2006, 12:10 AM
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Yes, exactly.

Here's is what you're all missing. If the Supreme Court had not found anything wrong with the lower court's ruling, it would have let it stand. They didn't. They reversed the ruling. A reversal means that you replace a decision with a contrary decision. They reversed because they believed the lower court was wrong.

If the Supeme Court believed that there wasn't enough evidence to rule (which was impossible because this was a question of law, not of evidence) they would have vacated the lower court's ruling...leaving the door open for a new ruling which could have been the same or different. That's not what they did. They reversed.

publius
February 1, 2006, 12:25 AM
Miller again:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

So if, during these "further proceedings" which the Supreme Court spoke about, it came within judicial notice that an 18 inch Trench Gun would have worked just as well for trench warfare as a 20 inch one, the resulting decision could not have been the same one the lower court had previously reached?

And what do you say to horge's point, that a short shotgun might come in handy for potential future conflicts?

And what of my point, made in jest on the previous page? The NFA applies to sawed off shotguns, but also to other things. Silencers, used by military snipers. Machine guns, commonly carried by soldiers. There is a movement afoot to make 50 caliber rifles NFA weapons. What if Miller had had a machine gun, instead of a shotgun? Would they still be talking about muskets of less than bastard bore? Might it have somehow come within judicial notice that those are militia weapons, and that therefore the NFA is in violation of the 2nd?

Graystar
February 1, 2006, 12:34 AM
So if, during these "further proceedings" which the Supreme Court spoke about, it came within judicial notice that an 18 inch Trench Gun would have worked just as well for trench warfare as a 20 inch one, the resulting decision could not have been the same one the lower court had previously reached?No. That's because the issue cannot be revisited once the higher court has reversed a ruling. Like I said...the ruling was reversed, not vacated.

You can't simply read the opinion of the court and forget about the rules and procedures of the court system. You have to learn what terms like reversed and vacated and remanded mean in the legal sense.

The issue was decided. There was no going back to it for the Miller case.

And what of my point, made in jest on the previous page?

That darn Miller! If only he had had a machine gun.
This is pure speculation, but the Court's procedure for determining the type of weapon indicates their belief that law determines the type of weapon. So basically, "you can only have what the law says you can have" is the way I see the Court's view of the situation. The failed challenge to the assault weapon ban in California would seem to be in line with that thinking.

I'm not saying that's right, mind you. I'm simply saying that's how it appears the court viewed the situation. That's not my view.

Gatman
February 1, 2006, 12:59 AM
I'm not an American.
I am however, largely the product of American colonialism,
and it is with no trifling affection that I regard the United States;
It is neither with minor concern that I observe recent trends in your country,
else I would not presume to post my thoughts here.
Bear with me, if you will.


"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."


To this foreigner, the Second Amendment is clearly framed to preserve
a necessary, well regulated militia. It refers to a separate natural
"right to keep and bear arms".

The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed
on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom.

The Second Amendment is notable in that it not only exalts the
people's ability to collectively take up arms in defense of freedom,
but by default calls on the people to maintain said ability.

It is thus a citizen's duty to keep and bear, because that preserves
what the Second Amendment seeks to preserve: readiness.

US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
not a suitable weapon for use by a militia, and therefore was not protected
by the Second Amendment. I feel the Court was incompetent to form any
opinion on what constitutes a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

It was incompetent because the nature and needs of war change rapidly.
Since one cannot predict what weapons the future will bring, nor what
war will be like in days to come, it is foolish to set into stone
what types of weapons are or aren't suitable for militia use.

A lot has changed since the 1700's, and troops no longer face off by forming
ordered lines. If war were to visit the native soil of the United States,
there would likely be some very ugly house-to-house fighting,
in multistory structures and very tight spaces involving many innocents,
encouraging the use of short firearms and even handguns.

Shortened shotguns. Handguns. Battle rifles. Crew-served weapons.
Ownership of such weapons and maintaining proficiency in their use qualifies
as necessary towards individual readiness to fight in a militia.

There will still be conventional battles, usually on foreign shores.
That is what a professional Armed Forces are for.
However, in the modern age, the enemy is increasingly a coward.
The enemy hides among civilians, and targets them,
violating all accepted conventions of war.
The enemy will be insidious, avoiding direct conflict with your military
and law enforcement, while attacking the foundations of America.

Terrorism is now recognizable as an act of war.
At what point does foreign-state sponsored crime constitute an act of war?
At what point does foreign-state sponsored illegal immigration constitute an invasion?

If/when unconventional aggressions reach a critical level, there may well
be fighting on US soil. Serious fighting that may preclude rapidly bringing
the full weight of your vaunted military to bear upon it.

Recent history has suggested how even the most powerful military on the planet
can be stretched too thin; how the most powerful nation on the planet
can be too slow to respond to massive calamity. The military, like disaster relief,
is a branch of centralized bureaucracy. Law enforcement is a more local
organ, but is often not sized to meet massive conflict.

In the towns and villages, in the boroughs, districts and slums,
the common people -and only the common people- are near enough
and numerous enough to make a difference immediately.
They must be ready to organize and take up arms at a moment's notice,
in defense of all that they hold dear --freedom most of all.


By propounding endlessly on a right to keep and bear arms, as
essentially a selfish/personal liberty, Americans may be missing the point
of the Second Amendment. .

Again, there is an independent "right to keep and bear", otherwise
the Second Amendment would not have referred to it.

The Second Amendment howevermentions a "right to keep and bear arms",
(and warns the Federal government not to mess with that right)
because the Second Amendment is also a call to Americans
--all Americans-- to maintain their readiness.

A readiness to provide and take up arms in organized defense of flag;
to take up arms in organized defense of freedom.
If your country's Constitution exalts and calls for such readiness,
then look about: does the word 'abandonment' come to mind?




Deeply concerned,
horge

Would you mind if I forwared that to the Professor who wrote my Textbook? The book makes no mention of the 2nd amendment. It has it listed in the copy of the bill of rights and thats it.

By the way, have you ever considered immigrating? If you have I will lobby to have the laws changed so you could run for governor at the least.

mordechaianiliewicz
February 1, 2006, 01:46 AM
I would vouch for you being naturalized if it was that simple.

You understand the 2nd exactly. It protects an individual right, and it also implies a literal "miltia." Citizen-soldiers.

horge
February 1, 2006, 01:48 AM
Hi, Gatman :)
You honor me overmuch !
Still, lest someone mistake my silence...

While I would fight for things that America represents;
and stand allied with Americans against their enemies;

I am proud to be born, and remain, a Filipino.

http://i1.tinypic.com/n12vc9.gif
horge

publius
February 1, 2006, 07:48 AM
No. That's because the issue cannot be revisited once the higher court has reversed a ruling.

OK, I am not a lawyer, and don't know the difference, but the question which occurs to me is, if a judgement is final, what would be the point of "further proceedings"?

Another one which occurs to me is, why was the Stewart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf) ruling vacated (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm) and not reversed in light of Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html)?

It seems to me that there is no way to interpret the Stewart case in light of the Raich ruling and come up with a ruling consistent with the previous one.

Graystar
February 1, 2006, 09:42 AM
OK, I am not a lawyer, and don't know the difference, but the question which occurs to me is, if a judgement is final, what would be the point of "further proceedings"?
Most court cases comprise a series of rulings. All sorts of motions are made by lawyers, and those are either granted or denied by the judge hearing the case. Any of those rulings can be appealed. In the Miller case, a demurrer was made. A demurrer is a plea in response to an allegation (as in a complaint or indictment) that admits its truth but also asserts that it is not sufficient as a cause of action (as in, “Yes he had the sawed-off shotgun, but the Second Amendment makes it okay to possess.”)

Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed and sustained the demurrer. This ruling effectively halted the prosecution of Miller. But with the Supreme Court’s reversal of this ruling, the prosecution of Miller could have continued (if he wasn’t dead.)

Another one which occurs to me is, why was the Stewart ruling vacated and not reversed in light of Raich?Read the actual ruling. At the end it says “AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.”

publius
February 1, 2006, 02:08 PM
Read the actual ruling. At the end it says “AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.”
OK, I must be looking in the wrong place (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm) because I don't see that.

It says this:

Aug 27 2004 Application (04A176) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 8, 2004 to October 8, 2004, submitted to Justice O'Connor.
Aug 30 2004 Application (04A176) granted by Justice O'Connor extending the time to file until October 8, 2004.
Sep 28 2004 Application (04A176) to extend further the time from October 8, 2004 to November 7, 2004, submitted to Justice O'Connor.
Sep 28 2004 Application (04A176) granted by Justice O'Connor extending the time to file until November 7, 2004.
Nov 5 2004 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 6, 2004)
Dec 6 2004 Brief of respondent Robert Wilson Stewart, Jr. in opposition filed.
Dec 6 2004 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent.
Dec 22 2004 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2005.
Jun 6 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 9, 2005.
Jun 13 2005 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
Jun 13 2005 Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).
Jul 15 2005 JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Graystar
February 1, 2006, 02:41 PM
OK, I must be looking in the wrong place (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm) because I don't see that.
Look in the link you gave to the ruling:

Stewart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf)

publius
February 2, 2006, 07:22 AM
I saw that, but that was Kozinski's opinion (9th circuit). That's the one the Supreme Court vacated. I'm still left wondering why they vacated the opinion instead of reversing it, since no interpretation of Stewart in light of Raich could possibly reach the opinion which Kozinski reached.

Graystar
February 2, 2006, 10:36 AM
Oh I see what the confusion is. The judgment that was vacated was the Ninth Circuit’s ruling of “affirmed in part and reversed in part”...not Stewart’s conviction. Basically, it is as if the Ninth Circuit had never made their ruling. The Supreme Court is telling them to rule again, but this time consider Gonzales v. Raich.

Of course, since it’s the reversal of Stewart’s conviction that was vacated, he is once again, convicted. I haven’t heard anything more on this case. Stewart was convicted of planning to murder the judge that presided over his trial, so he’s in jail for a long time anyways. My guess is that he’s given up on it.

Dannyboy
February 3, 2006, 12:39 AM
Not to hijack the thread but I have a question of sorts. I've been arguing with a guy in one of my classes over interpretations of the COnstitution. He can't get past the Militia clause and thinks the 2nd does not convey an individual right. I found quotes from Washington, Jefferson, and Madison basically saying they thought it to be an individual right. Here's my question: These guys were instrumental in writing the Constitution, so shouldn't their view pretty much put an end to the debate? I mean, if I write a poem and then explain what it means then it's no longer open to interpretation.

telomerase
February 3, 2006, 01:01 AM
It's not like we're picking on the Second Amendment... we've abandoned the rest of them as well.

Meplat
February 3, 2006, 02:46 AM
Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..

Not as long as they fear an armed general population.

2." a lot has changed since 1700's", yes it has..we have USAF, States National Guard, National, State and Local Law Enforcement..if this is not enough to address threats by irregulars, then heaven help us...because no rag tag assembly of citizenry will aid in this one no matter what you say/ arms yourself with..

Bullfeathers. Where were YOU when armed gangs roaming and looting neighborhoods in the aftermath of Katrina decided that SOME neighborhoods were not as easy to glean as others? I was in one of those neighborhoods that banded together. The National Guard, USAF, and local law enforcement was powerless to intervene. Would not have mattered one way or another to us whether it was domestic scum or foreign invaders.

3. your romantiziced notion of the second amendment is shared by many...

Including those who wrote it. See, they took on and kicked the arses of the most powerful government in existence at the time by hanging on to those "romanticized notions."

War is not something to be taken lightly as we have found out throughout numerous "conflicts" since WWII...

No sir, it is certainly not.

but you just have to experience the "dogs of war" to see that arms in and of themselves do not "peace" make, just the opposite..Sir, even warriors have codes of honor, we don't have to debase ourselves in the pursuit of "justice". As we now know, "War" is being fought for a number of contradictory reasons..political, economical, moral...it's nice to make decisions from the safety zone..

Were it not true that arms, and more importantly, the fortitude to use them, do indeed make peace, we'd be subjects to the Crown of England right now, who themselves would be under the thumb of Nazi rulers....like THAT chain of command too much?

War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!...we seem to think that might makes right, but they aren't buying our "ideals"..."they" are just in fear of being obliterated if they don't comply witht the misguided demands of the U.S....our idea that somehow "they" cannot coexist without our intervention in their affairs is just the ticket we are buying..as i've said before, "they" have dealt/lived with ethnic or racial conflict for millenia...but We know better...so much for the high road... YMMV

Yeah. Damn shame we intervened against Hitler. He was SUCH a nice guy. Too bad we stopped "ethnic cleansing" in Balklands. And so sad that Saddam won't be able to kill his own countrymen by the thousands anymore.

cz75bdneos22
February 3, 2006, 04:08 AM
Not as long as they fear an armed general population.



Bullfeathers. Where were YOU when armed gangs roaming and looting neighborhoods in the aftermath of Katrina decided that SOME neighborhoods were not as easy to glean as others? I was in one of those neighborhoods that banded together. The National Guard, USAF, and local law enforcement was powerless to intervene. Would not have mattered one way or another to us whether it was domestic scum or foreign invaders.



Including those who wrote it. See, they took on and kicked the arses of the most powerful government in existence at the time by hanging on to those "romanticized notions."



No sir, it is certainly not.



Were it not true that arms, and more importantly, the fortitude to use them, do indeed make peace, we'd be subjects to the Crown of England right now, who themselves would be under the thumb of Nazi rulers....like THAT chain of command too much?



Yeah. Damn shame we intervened against Hitler. He was SUCH a nice guy. Too bad we stopped "ethnic cleansing" in Balklands. And so sad that Saddam won't be able to kill his own countrymen by the thousands anymore.

1. "not as long as...when has being armed stopped anyone from attack by a determined force. thanks but no thanks.

2.sorry about your situation, again you lived through it. it could have been otherwise..armed or not..believe what you want..

3. well, you have a fixed belief on what you are able to grasp of the available facts..the same objective has been accomplished by forces elsewhere without the benefit of what the "notions" are...but, of course...that all took place before they were enlightened by our founding fathers..

4. it's too simplistic a view...you've narrowed things down to those features of an issue/event which satisfy your concieved ideas of what happened.. but then, to understand complex(multi-dimensional) geo-political events..as everything in Life...sometimes logic simply just does not always prevail..i'll get back later!:evil:

Meplat
February 3, 2006, 05:07 AM
Ya know, your posts would be much more readable, and your thoughts much easier to follow it you would break your quotes and counters into segments that could be addressed line by line. I don't know whether you are deliberately obfuscating, or just not aware of a much easier format to address a post in.

1. "not as long as...when has being armed stopped anyone from attack by a determined force. thanks but no thanks.

It stopped attacks VERY recently by bands of maruding gangs on our own Gulf Coast. It stopped the looting of many Korean owned businesses in Los Angeles during the riots there. That's on a domestic front. If you doubt the determined nature of these attacks, then your head is in the sand as to police responses to 911 calls and the fact that they refused to answer them in certain areas. If you would like some history from futher back, I'd suggest you read about how Andrew Jackson, musket ball lodged in his chest and dysentery in his pants, and a good burning hatred for the British who had imprisoned and killed his parents in his heart led a rag-tag group of 4000 ol' boys from Kentucky to New Orleans and all points in between in 1814. I'll give you hint as to how the story ends. They kicked s*&t out of 12,000 well armed, well trained, highly motivated soldiers in the best military in the world at that time. Study the Battle of 1812, tell me that armed forces have never stopped anyone for being successfully attacked, and I'll gladly tell you once again "bullfeathers".

2.sorry about your situation, again you lived through it. it could have been otherwise..armed or not..believe what you want..

Didn't ask for any sympathy. Don't want any. Don't need any. And yes, I MIGHT not have survived, but I did. Had I gone down though, rest assured that some other innocent (probably several, as a matter of fact) would have survived in my stead, because I don't often miss. So my individual survival didn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things...others in my community would have benefitted. AND if you think for even one second that those doing the pillaging weren't FULL WELL AWARE of which neighborhoods were safe to loot and which were not, then you are one blind puppy.

3. well, you have a fixed belief on what you are able to grasp of the available facts..the same objective has been accomplished by forces elsewhere without the benefit of what the "notions" are...but, of course...that all took place before they were enlightened by our founding fathers..

I will tell you this...I am "able to grasp" one hell of a lot more than you give me credit for. I am able to grasp the fact that the above sentence made no sense whatsoever.

4. it's too simplistic a view...you've narrowed things down to those features of an issue/event which satisfy your concieved ideas of what happened.. but then, to understand complex geo-political events..as everything in Life...sometimes logic simply just does not always prevail..i'll get back later!:evil:

Naw...I was in the middle of it. As to getting back to me, once you can do so coherently, I'll be glad to hear from you again. Your number 4 made only slightly more sense than your number 3 response. About the only thing that came through clearly was your condescending tone about "my concieved ideas of what happened." You know VERY little about it if you weren't HERE. What the media showed you was only a small sliver of things as they occurred.

cz75bdneos22
February 3, 2006, 06:47 AM
ok. i see that you have situational incidents that seem on face value to counter my assertions as to why people believe what they do....that's fair. it's true too. People are a funny bunch of folks. still, you or i don't seem to be addressing the ultimate principle involved behind these behaviors...while, there may be exception to every rule...i don't think you would support using those exceptions as the rule by which to conduct affairs. again, i point out that most people are genuinely well intentioned. they labor over seemingly straitforward information to arrive.. by logic, at decisions (choices) concerning matters of importance..and they come to this reason using the information that is available to them at a given time. But, know something..it's nice to be wrong..we(people) seem to have a knack for learning from our mistakes. there is a saying in spanish...from said to done, there's a whole way's in between..de dicho a hecho, es mucho el trecho..People do foolish things all the time..even seemingly intelligent people. what's more, it continues even when logic tells them otherwise and any rational person would have folded their cards. we can at least agree on that. some people have an uncanny ability to know that, i think. i never have been one to follow selective occurences, nor will i ever be. you may play with the cirscumnstances regarding any given situation, but that does not change the underlying principle. it never stopped anyone from trying though. that's human behavior for ya! just when we think logic prevails, primal instincts can and often override our seat of reason. that can drive anyone crazy..don't ask me how i know this!:neener:

Lobotomy Boy
February 3, 2006, 10:59 AM
ok. i see that you have situational incidents that seem on face value to counter my assertions as to why people believe what they do....that's fair. it's true too.

This is usually the result of dogmatic theory coming into direct conflict with harsh reality. That's why most academics have to hide in the bowels of college campuses--they are so dogmatic about their ideological beliefs that the second they were exposed to harsh reality they would wither like a hot-house flower in a blizzard.

Edited to add: I don't mean this as a criticism of CZ75BD's position. It just struck me as an example of a roadblock I often reach when trying to have a rational discussion with a dogmatic ideologue on either the right or the left. The fact that CZ made this comment indicates his thinking is not hindered by such road blocks.

publius
February 3, 2006, 11:30 AM
The Supreme Court is telling them to rule again, but this time consider Gonzales v. Raich.

Yes, and I'm wondering why they sent them off to rule again, when the conclusion they must reach is obvious from the instruction to rule "in light of Gonzalez v Raich." Why not simply reverse the ruling of the 9th and be done with it?

Graystar
February 3, 2006, 12:02 PM
Yes, and I'm wondering why they sent them off to rule again, when the conclusion they must reach is obvious from the instruction to rule "in light of Gonzalez v Raich." Why not simply reverse the ruling of the 9th and be done with it?
Nothing is obvious when it comes to appeal decisions. There could be several reasons why the court thought it best to allow the Ninth to rule again. You’d have to ask Justice O’Connor.

The original point, however, is that lower courts will proceed based on the instruction of the superior court. The wording in the Miller opinion is clear…”reversed”. That means that the lower court cannot rule on the issue again, and must accept the superior court’s contrary ruling. Any lawyer can confirm this. It’s only laypersons that continue to believe that, in Miller, the Court sent the issue back down to the lower court. That simply isn’t true.

Meplat
February 3, 2006, 04:04 PM
ok. i see that you have situational incidents that seem on face value to counter my assertions as to why people believe what they do....that's fair. it's true too. People are a funny bunch of folks. still, you or i don't seem to be addressing the ultimate principle involved behind these behaviors...while, there may be exception to every rule...i don't think you would support using those exceptions as the rule by which to conduct affairs. again, i point out that most people are genuinely well intentioned. they labor over seemingly straitforward information to arrive.. by logic, at decisions (choices) concerning matters of importance..and they come to this reason using the information that is available to them at a given time. But, know something..it's nice to be wrong..we(people) seem to have a knack for learning from our mistakes. there is a saying in spanish...from said to done, there's a whole way's in between..de dicho a hecho, es mucho el trecho..People do foolish things all the time..even seemingly intelligent people. what's more, it continues even when logic tells them otherwise and any rational person would have folded their cards. we can at least agree on that. some people have an uncanny ability to know that, i think. i never have been one to follow selective occurences, nor will i ever be. you may play with the cirscumnstances regarding any given situation, but that does not change the underlying principle. it never stopped anyone from trying though. that's human behavior for ya! just when we think logic prevails, primal instincts can and often override our seat of reason. that can drive anyone crazy..don't ask me how i know this!:neener:

I give up with this one. Is there an interpreter in the house who can translate gibberish into coherent English?

publius
February 3, 2006, 08:04 PM
Graystar,

Thanks for patiently sharing your knowledge.

Would you mind terribly going through the SC docket page (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm) on the Stewart case and translating it into English and explaining what's going on? I mean line by line, under the assumption that I know nothing. I'm wondering because you said "ask Justice O'Connor" why the case was remanded and not reversed. I see that the original applications in the case were submitted to, and granted by, Justice O'Connor. I take it cases are given to individual Justices to handle before coming before the Court? But does that then mean that it would be O'Connor's decision, not the Court's decision, whether to reverse or remand? I would have thought that once a cert petition is granted, such decisions would be made by the whole Court.

~Date~~~ Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 27 2004 Application (04A176) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 8, 2004 to October 8, 2004, submitted to Justice O'Connor.
Aug 30 2004 Application (04A176) granted by Justice O'Connor extending the time to file until October 8, 2004.
Sep 28 2004 Application (04A176) to extend further the time from October 8, 2004 to November 7, 2004, submitted to Justice O'Connor.
Sep 28 2004 Application (04A176) granted by Justice O'Connor extending the time to file until November 7, 2004.
Nov 5 2004 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 6, 2004)
Dec 6 2004 Brief of respondent Robert Wilson Stewart, Jr. in opposition filed.
Dec 6 2004 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent.
Dec 22 2004 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 7, 2005.
Jun 6 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 9, 2005.
Jun 13 2005 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
Jun 13 2005 Petition (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf) GRANTED. Judgment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf) VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html), 545 U.S. ____ (2005).
Jul 15 2005 JUDGMENT ISSUED.

huh?:confused:

Graystar
February 4, 2006, 03:26 AM
Would you mind terribly going through the SC docket page (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm) on the Stewart case and translating it into English and explaining what's going on?
Sure, but you have to remember that I’m not a lawyer...I just play one in the forums ;) So my information is certainly not as complete as a person who’s really in the know.

Each Justice is assigned a Circuit. Justice O’Connor is assigned to the Ninth Circuit. That’s why she made the rulings.

A Writ of Certiorari is an order to call up the records of the case in question from the inferior court.

According to the Supreme Court rules, you must file a Writ of Certiorari within 90 days of the ruling you wish to have reviewed. If you cannot, you may file for an extension, allowing you more time.

On 27-AUG-04 the government filed and extension.
On 30-AUG-04 the extension was granted.
On 28-SEP-04 the government filed another extension.
On 28-SEP-04 the extension was granted.
On 5-NOV-04 the government filed its Writ of Certiorari

The rules allow a respondent to file a brief explaining why the Court should not take on the case.

On 6-DEC-04 Stewart files a brief in opposition

The rules allow a petitioner or a respondent to make a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (as a poor person: relieved of the fees and costs of a legal action because of inability to pay.) This gives relief from any fees, and allows a less stringent format for document preparation.

On 6-DEC-04 Stewart files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
On 13-JUN-05 the motion was granted.

On 13-JUN-05 the petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted.

On 13-JUN-05 Judgement VACATED
It is my understanding that a single justice can make rule on a case on procedural grounds, and that seems to be what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, a writ of certiorari was never issued. Justice O’Connor simply vacated the judgement and sent the case back.

And that seems to be the end of the case. I'm not aware of Stewart filing a new appeal.

cz75bdneos22
February 4, 2006, 04:00 AM
This is usually the result of dogmatic theory coming into direct conflict with harsh reality. That's why most academics have to hide in the bowels of college campuses--they are so dogmatic about their ideological beliefs that the second they were exposed to harsh reality they would wither like a hot-house flower in a blizzard.

Edited to add: I don't mean this as a criticism of CZ75BD's position. It just struck me as an example of a roadblock I often reach when trying to have a rational discussion with a dogmatic ideologue on either the right or the left. The fact that CZ made this comment indicates his thinking is not hindered by such road blocks.

+10 and thank you, sir...;)

cz75bdneos22
February 4, 2006, 04:04 AM
I give up with this one. Is there an interpreter in the house who can translate gibberish into coherent English?

you know what i mean...regardless of the way it is written, thought..right?
it's alright...life will go on...enjoy life, that's all!;)

sigman4rt
February 4, 2006, 05:15 AM
I can't remember the exact phrase, so I'll paraphrase. "there are men with muddy boots and there are men who write about those men in muddy boots." You sir have muddy boots. I salute you and yours for your actions during the recent lawlessness.

R.T.

publius
February 4, 2006, 07:47 AM
On 13-JUN-05 the petition for a Writ of Certiorari was granted.

On 13-JUN-05 Judgement VACATED
It is my understanding that a single justice can make rule on a case on procedural grounds, and that seems to be what happened in this case. As far as I can tell, a writ of certiorari was never issued.
OK, I'm still not understanding that. The government petitioned for one, the petition was granted, but it was never issued? :confused:

Manedwolf
February 4, 2006, 09:40 AM
ok. i see that you have situational incidents that seem on face value to counter my assertions as to why people believe what they do....that's fair. it's true too. People are a funny bunch of folks. still, you or i don't seem to be addressing the ultimate principle involved behind these behaviors...while, there may be exception to every rule...i don't think you would support using those exceptions as the rule by which to conduct affairs. again, i point out that most people are genuinely well intentioned. they labor over seemingly straitforward information to arrive.. by logic, at decisions (choices) concerning matters of importance..and they come to this reason using the information that is available to them at a given time. But, know something..it's nice to be wrong..we(people) seem to have a knack for learning from our mistakes. there is a saying in spanish...from said to done, there's a whole way's in between..de dicho a hecho, es mucho el trecho..People do foolish things all the time..even seemingly intelligent people. what's more, it continues even when logic tells them otherwise and any rational person would have folded their cards. we can at least agree on that. some people have an uncanny ability to know that, i think. i never have been one to follow selective occurences, nor will i ever be. you may play with the cirscumnstances regarding any given situation, but that does not change the underlying principle. it never stopped anyone from trying though. that's human behavior for ya! just when we think logic prevails, primal instincts can and often override our seat of reason. that can drive anyone crazy..don't ask me how i know this!:neener:

Uh..if you're trying to get a point-across, Faulknerian stream-of-conciousness isn't the best way. Paragraph breaks are a good thing. :scrutiny:

Lobotomy Boy
February 4, 2006, 09:59 AM
You know, that might make a good new forum on THR; we could take our cue from an old "The Onion" bit and have the "Ask a Faulknerian Idiot Manchild" forum.

I think I'm a bit loopy. I have a low-grade fever and haven't slept and have to fly to Cincinnati in a couple of hours. I feel very much like a Faulknerian idiot manchild. Time to shut down the computer.

Graystar
February 4, 2006, 12:25 PM
OK, I'm still not understanding that. The government petitioned for one, the petition was granted, but it was never issued? :confused:
Like I said, a writ of certiorari is an order to call up the records for review. But if a justice can make a procedural ruling without looking at the case documents (because enough information was provided in the petition) then there’s no reason to get the case records.

Meplat
February 4, 2006, 02:19 PM
you know what i mean...regardless of the way it is written, thought..right?

Actually, I have NO IDEA what you mean. I don't read gibberese. Sorry. Free-form prose is fine for poets, but in a medium where ideas should be precisely worded, it is pretty useless.

it's alright...life will go on...enjoy life, that's all!;)

Don't worry about that. I intend to. And intend to ensure that anyone who tries to stop that life from going on - or me from enjoying that life doesn't enjoy their efforts. I can't ensure that unarmed and naked. (See? That's how one makes a coherent point. You might want to give it a try.)

publius
February 4, 2006, 05:20 PM
Uh..if you're trying to get a point-across...


Hey, lay off. I think he's just trying to politely say he has a rash on his seat of reason.

Meplat
February 4, 2006, 07:07 PM
Hey, lay off. I think he's just trying to politely say he has a rash on his seat of reason.

I honestly don't think he knows what he is trying to say, and so therefore just wanders around hoping to one day accidently make a point.

NineseveN
February 4, 2006, 07:31 PM
it was argued for a reason...since the second ammendment guarantees the "keep and bear arms" clause...which i agree to an extent...ever since the inception of a National Armed Forces the "militia" became a moot point...that is why ever since the turn of the 20th century, after the passage of the Old "Wild" West era...iit was in the first three decades that the states acted to restrict by law both the keeping and the bearing of arms to those who would comply with the parameters set forth by the individual states...also, contributing to the discrepancy in allowing a CCW to be issued/reciprocated among the states...it's late ...and i'm leaving in a few hours...see ya!

:rolleyes:
Oh great, another half-way gunowner. This kind of thinking clearly demonstrates the difference between "someone that owns guns" and "someone that knows and understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms". Barbie has her own Barbie house too, that doesn't make her an expert on or an advocate of private property rights.


BTW, good discussion on the Miller decision. :)

cz75bdneos22
February 6, 2006, 12:01 AM
Actually, I have NO IDEA what you mean. I don't read gibberese. Sorry. Free-form prose is fine for poets, but in a medium where ideas should be precisely worded, it is pretty useless.



Don't worry about that. I intend to. And intend to ensure that anyone who tries to stop that life from going on - or me from enjoying that life doesn't enjoy their efforts. I can't ensure that unarmed and naked. (See? That's how one makes a coherent point. You might want to give it a try.)


Sir, neither you nor anyone else can stop a person from killing you or others..if you think so, then you just have not met the one man who will show you otherwise. Secondly, don't go by what you see in the media. Life is not edited for t.v...being armed does not make you immune to dying. moreso, continuing to believe as you do...then, it's only a matter of time before you find out the hard way...unfortunately for you, it will be too late. Death is not cool..especially when it involves oneself. Am i saying not to arm yourself. No. it's your right damn it! Arm yourself to the teeth for all i care. You are free to pursue whatever ends tickle your fancy..However, don't delude yourself...Death is certain. And while variables (insert your fav) can
and do positively affect outcomes (sometimes) in life or death
situations..In no way does it guarantee you will live. Just
ask a relative of a person who was killed while being armed themselves. i guess you must be the one exception to the rule. As long as you are armed, no one will kill you or others close to you. you remind me of countless other people who share the same view towards Life..I'm getting a fire-extinguisher in case of fire. I'm getting a helmet in case i fall off my moto. I'm putting my seat belt in case i have an accident. I'm getting an alarm in case my house is burglarized. etc, etc.
It's O.K..i long for the day i can feel the same way as you do. until then, i have much to learn...Live long

horge
February 6, 2006, 01:30 AM
:scrutiny:
Breath-taking.

NineseveN
February 6, 2006, 01:36 AM
:scrutiny:
Breath-taking.

Folks, the head of the nail just met the hammer. :D

Meplat
February 12, 2006, 11:56 PM
Sir, neither you nor anyone else can stop a person from killing you or others..if you think so, then you just have not met the one man who will show you otherwise.

*sigh* Sometimes I grow weary. This is one of those times. You sir, I can barely bring myself to deal with. I admit it. Your head in the clouds ( and I AM being very generous with that location) attitude is just too much for me. If I want half baked Shaolin philosophy from those incapable of actually intellectually thinking, I'll buy the old Kung Fu series on DVD. You have YET to directly address any one of many examples given to you of just how false this "philosphical" mindset of yours is. I have given clear examples - concrete examles of lives spared through the possession and or use of firearms.

Secondly, don't go by what you see in the media.

I don't. As I have more than patiently explained to you dozens of times. I've given concrete, real world examples. You have responded with poorly worded, ill thought out false philosophical posts in an attempt to appear somehow "enlightened".

Life is not edited for t.v...being armed does not make you immune to dying.

Once again, if you will just go back and read what I have posted, you will quite clearly see that I never claimed that being armed would make me immune to dying. I did say that it would make it a whole lot harder for someone to MAKE that occur.

moreso, continuing to believe as you do...then, it's only a matter of time before you find out the hard way...unfortunately for you, it will be too late. Death is not cool..especially when it involves oneself.

That would sound like a threat if I were not already so familiar with your weak grasp of the English language and poor ability to think on a rational level.
Am i saying not to arm yourself.

That's fine, because I never asked your permission.

No. it's your right damn it! Arm yourself to the teeth for all i care. You are free to pursue whatever ends tickle your fancy..However, don't delude yourself...Death is certain.

You're kidding me, right? Death is certain? Are you sure?

And while variables (insert your fav) can
and do positively affect outcomes (sometimes) in life or death
situations..In no way does it guarantee you will live.

I never said, anywhere, that being armed guaranteed survival. Merely that being armed increases your chances of survival if someone else is intent on whittling those chances down.

Just ask a relative of a person who was killed while being armed themselves. i guess you must be the one exception to the rule. As long as you are armed, no one will kill you or others close to you. you remind me of countless other people who share the same view towards Life..I'm getting a fire-extinguisher in case of fire. I'm getting a helmet in case i fall off my moto. I'm putting my seat belt in case i have an accident. I'm getting an alarm in case my house is burglarized. etc, etc.

So now you think that fire extinguishers cannot stop minor blazes from growing into deadly fires, that motorcycle helmets can't prevent otherwise minor head injuries from being fatal, that seat belts can't and don't cut down on fatalities in automobile accidents, and that house alarms don't decrease your chances of being burgled? Save me from a half baked philosopher. Choose as you will on all of the above subjects...that should be the right of any free man - irregardless of what those who would run your life might like to think. Ride you scoot without a brainbucket. Drive your car without your seatbelt. For what it's worth, I stand behind your or anyone else's decision to do so. Especially yours.

It's O.K..i long for the day i can feel the same way as you do. until then, i have much to learn...Live long

I intend to do just that, thank you very much.

BTW, I can't help but notice the fact that one of your postscripts claims NRA membership. With your out there philosopy, why?

bowline
February 13, 2006, 04:09 AM
It doesn't really take all kinds, we get them anyway though....
FWIW, I am retired military, once a competitive shooter, carry concealed, and am a mean hand at scrabble.
Owning and carrying a firearm doesn't make me immune to death. Nor does it guarantee that 'the government / army / looters' will respect my freedoms, rights, property - but it keeps the subject open to debate!
If the question comes up, I'd much rather be prepared to answer than stay silent. There are apparently those who would prefer to be unable to respond.

Apologies to military personnel for lumping them in with thieves and, umm... thieves.

Lobotomy Boy
February 13, 2006, 07:19 AM
I'm reading a book called "Bloody Business," about government contractors and our government's reliance on them. Governments use contractors to do work that is politically impossible for them to do. It makes me think that when someone comes to collect our guns, it won't be soldiers, but rather some really determined dudes from a company like Blackwater.

The book is excellent. It's written by a retired colonel and takes a pragmatic look at the need for contractors and mercenaries throughout history (it makes a strong distinction between the two). I'm reading an uncorrected proof because the book won't be published until May, by Zenith Press. This book is incredible.

cz75bdneos22
February 13, 2006, 01:03 PM
NRA membership, why?
simple, cuz I can take preventative measures now to ensure the right we have under 2A can be shared by me/others in the future..and
when that is no longer possible, cuz it can/or will happen..i will continue to support through activism, some other interest..because my life's interests are independent of my ability to keep and bear arms. YMMV.;)

one other thing let's separate philposohy from action..what i believe (Philosophy) has nothing to do with what i do (activism). I can believe something, and by the same token, do the opposite. Can't I? I can. Can you? let's see some examples in practicum...

Meplat, if i reply to your quote...it is to make a point. It is using your line of thinking as a point of reference to what is being discussed. It does not equate to a personal attack. It's about the message, not the messanger. we are here to discuss issues and come to an understanding of the issues and how they impact us. You are free to your opininons regardless of the content. that i know. But this is the high road and it is our responsability to come to a better understanding of what we must do, as opposed to what is already being done. i am here to learn too.

I believe smoking is bad for my health. yet, I smoke.
I believe drugs are bad for my health. yet, i do drugs.
I believe fornication is a sin. yet, I fornicate.
I believe in God. yet, I don't live through Him.

so, what was the point?

NineseveN
February 13, 2006, 01:47 PM
I believe smoking is bad for my health. yet, I smoke.
I believe drugs are bad for my health. yet, i do drugs.
I believe fornication is a sin. yet, I fornicate.
I believe in God. yet, I don't live through Him.


Then we can certainly take anything you profess as a matter of principle with a grain of salt. If I were you, and I am not, I would do one of two things before I continued with any discussion:

I would either rectify all of those hypocrisies and live according to my beliefs

or

I would reconcile my beliefs with how I live my life and make honest decisions as to the validity of the statements above.

Lobotomy Boy
February 13, 2006, 02:08 PM
No offense, but you may want to lay off the drugs, too. Normally I try not to preach, but dude, sometimes your ideas come out a bit garbled.

j grimes
February 14, 2006, 07:58 PM
to cz75 .we r not rag nor tag,a million well armed citizens is a force to be reckoned with.who was that jappaness who said a rifle behind every blade of grass.
shall not be infringed! except for XY & Z :banghead:

Stauble
February 14, 2006, 08:38 PM
BTW, here's a question for the legal scholars amongst us... In light of the fact that our troops do indeed use sawed off shotguns in battle (proving them to be suitable for use by the "Militia"), what would the chances be of getting Miller overturned?

im no expert, but our troops also use automatic weapons, wich we are not allowed to own except under special circumstances. Though from my understanding, Judge Alito has questioned if outlawing machine guns was constituional

Being an American is a state of mind. You qualify.

kinda like bein a redneck:neener:

very good post

richyoung
February 15, 2006, 12:58 AM
Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..[quote]

THANK GOD! I am SO releived to learn I was hallucinating when I thought that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists crashed hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and that Mexican police and army have crossed the southern border repeatedly to protect narcotics traffic.

[quote]2." a lot has changed since 1700's", yes it has..we have USAF, States National Guard, National, State and Local Law Enforcement..if this is not enough to address threats by irregulars, then heaven help us...because no rag tag assembly of citizenry will aid in this one no matter what you say/ arms yourself with..
YESSIR! No way that the Viet Cong could defeat the French, and then the US army, or that Afghanies could defeat the Russian army, or that the French Resistance could have a meaningful effect on the war in Europe, or that rebels fighting with leftover weapons and improvised bombs could keep us tied down for two years in Iraq with no end in sight, or that anti-communist guerillas could defeat the Soviet backed Sandinistas, or...



3. your romantiziced notion of the second amendment is shared by many...War is not something to be taken lightly as we have found out throughout numerous "conflicts" since WWII...but you just have to experience the "dogs of war" to see that arms in and of themselves do not "peace" make, just the opposite..Sir, even warriors have codes of honor, we don't have to debase ourselves in the pursuit of "justice". As we now know, "War" is being fought for a number of contradictory reasons..political, economical, moral...it's nice to make decisions from the safety zone..War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!...we seem to think that might makes right, but they aren't buying our "ideals"..."they" are just in fear of being obliterated if they don't comply witht the misguided demands of the U.S....our idea that somehow "they" cannot coexist without our intervention in their affairs is just the ticket we are buying..as i've said before, "they" have dealt/lived with ethnic or racial conflict for millenia...but We know better...so much for the high road... YMMV

ATTENTION: DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND ---one of your trolls has escaped...

cz75bdneos22
February 15, 2006, 01:13 AM
Then we can certainly take anything you profess as a matter of principle with a grain of salt. If I were you, and I am not, I would do one of two things before I continued with any discussion:

I would either rectify all of those hypocrisies and live according to my beliefs

or

I would reconcile my beliefs with how I live my life and make honest decisions as to the validity of the statements above.


I was trying to make a point! :D
thanks to all that participated...

NineseveN
February 15, 2006, 11:19 AM
I was trying to make a point! :D
thanks to all that participated...

Oh I think you made one indeed, perhaps not the one that you intended to, but nothing in life comes for free.

griz
February 15, 2006, 08:46 PM
From cz75bdneos22:
one other thing let's separate philposohy from action..what i believe (Philosophy) has nothing to do with what i do (activism).....

I believe in God. yet, I don't live through Him.

so, what was the point?

Have you ever considered a career in comedy? You could make a fortune.

CrazyIrishman
February 15, 2006, 09:38 PM
What is soo hard to understand,especially the last half of it?

"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. "


I believe that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were trying to get across to people just as its worded. I'm hardly a scholar but I do fail to see what all of the confusion is about.

The only apparent difficulty I have noticed is trying to cut through all of the BS and smokescreens that the politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch try to confuse us with.

fantacmet
February 15, 2006, 10:51 PM
Horg, you have my deepest and sincerest respect. Not to mash on any foreigner from ANYWHERE, but it is truly a sad state of affairs when someone who doesn't even live in our country, and who lives under a completely different type of governing body understands our constitution better then 95% of citizens here do. The very statement, "The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom." proves this.

KUDO'S TO YOU!!!!

Rev. Michael

horge
February 21, 2006, 10:02 PM
Kudos most appreciated, Rev. Michael.

:)

Kentak
February 21, 2006, 10:14 PM
To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense. If you have that right, you have to be granted an effective means of self-defense.

K

horge
February 22, 2006, 07:31 AM
To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense. If you have that right, you have to be granted an effective means of self-defense.

K


Indeed.
The Second Amendment cannot be central to a natural RKBA.
I believe my point was that it is the other way around:
A separate and independent RKBA is central to the Second Amendment.

The Real Hawkeye
February 22, 2006, 08:06 AM
To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense. If you have that right, you have to be granted an effective means of self-defense.

KI hope you meant to say that you have to be permitted an effective means of self-defense, rather than granted. If you have a right to be granted something, that means that I have an obligation to provide you with one, which I don't. Just wanted to clarify that. You have to acquire your own arms. No one has to grant them to you.

Kentak
February 25, 2006, 05:28 PM
Real Hawkeye...

Of course, I agree with you. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, if one has the right of self-defense, then the right to an effective means of self-defense would be a corollary.

K

Meplat
February 25, 2006, 08:50 PM
I was trying to make a point!
thanks to all that participated...

No problem dood. Now fire your crack pipe up, I think your ember's grown cold.

TequilaMockingbird
February 25, 2006, 10:06 PM
I've been arguing with a guy in one of my classes over interpretations of the COnstitution. He can't get past the Militia clause and thinks the 2nd does not convey an individual right.

Dannyboy, show him this. (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Dec-11-Sun-2005/opinion/4681150.html)

Hawkmoon
February 25, 2006, 10:21 PM
Also show him this:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

It's a long read, but the meat is on the last page.

Then there's the more recent AG's report:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

An even longer read, but the Introduction itself states that the Dept of Justice views the 2nd Amendment as securing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

k_semler
February 26, 2006, 04:20 AM
@horge:

You have posted absolutly nothing I disagree with. If I were to write the 2nd today, (in modern language), it would read as follows:

As it is nessecary for an armed population to exist to throw off oppressive actions and regimes, It shall be the duty of all free citizens to be at all times armed, and prepared to act should assistance become nessceary in the execution of any lawful action. Armed defence shall not be prohibited under any circumstance, but this shall not include defence in the act of commission of a violent felony.

Molon Labe
February 26, 2006, 09:08 AM
To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense.+1.

Pro-gunners should never use the 2nd Amendment to "prove" they have a right to keep and bear arms. We had this right before the Constitution was ratified, and we will have this right after the Constitution is sent through the paper shredder.

It's a bit ironic, but our right to keep and bear arms will be exercised to the fullest after the disappearance of the 2nd Amendment...

hugh damright
February 26, 2006, 09:59 AM
He can't get past the Militia clause and thinks the 2nd does not convey an individual right.
I think you're both right ... I don't believe the 2nd conveys an individual right, I believe it is intended only to limit the feds ... but regardless of the 2nd, it is well established that the we have federal protection of the individual RKBA as it relates to militia.

As it is nessecary for an armed population to exist to throw off oppressive actions and regimes, It shall be the duty of all free citizens to be at all times armed
I don't follow ... I understand the idea that free government i.e. majority rule requires an armed majority ... but I do not understand why majority rule requires that every Citizen be armed at all times .... quite the contrary, I think if a people have free government then it is up to them to decide what gun laws they want (as long as they do not go so far as to disarm the majority and thus pave a road to monarchy).

The Real Hawkeye
February 26, 2006, 10:11 AM
I don't follow ... I understand the idea that free government i.e. majority rule requires an armed majority ... but I do not understand why majority rule requires that every Citizen be armed at all times .... quite the contrary, I think if a people have free government then it is up to them to decide what gun laws they want (as long as they do not go so far as to disarm the majority and thus pave a road to monarchy). Hugh, you seem too generally knowledgeable for me to believe that you actually think we were established as a national democracy. We were established as a Constitutional Republic. The only way liberty is preserved is with strictly limited government. Democracy (i.e., unlimited government under the control of the majority) is the death knell to liberty, not its preservative. The Continental Army did not sacrifice what it did to establish a national democracy.

The Federal Government is strictly limited to external matters of national concern, while the State governments were to handle all things effecting the people directly. The reason for this was that the Founders trusted the people to limit their State governments with their own Constitutions, not so they could establish a dozen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority. Yes, the State governments were intended to be more responsive to the will of their citizens, but not democracies. Those were anathema to the Founders.

hugh damright
February 26, 2006, 10:59 AM
Hugh, you seem too generally knowledgeable for me to believe that you actually think we were established as a national democracy. We were established as a Constitutional Republic.
Actually, I believe we are fifty Constituted Republics or "free States". I do not mean to say that a free State is a mobocracy ... I believe the intent is rule of law, not rule by the arbitrary will of a King or an aristocracy, nor rule by the arbitrary will of the majority.

But in a free State, with rule of law, the laws must be consented to by the majority or by their representatives. In a free State, all men being equal, sovereignty resides in a majority. And it was to ensure this majority rule, this collective right of a people to control their own State, that it was declared that a standing army is dangerous to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is the people themselves, trained to arms, and organized into well regulated militia.

The reason for this was that the Founders trusted the people to limit their State governments with their own Constitutions, not so they could establish a dozen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority.
Well now wait a minute .... the States came first. The "thirteen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" were already established, and the US Constitution is a compact between them. What you call "little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" ... I think that's what the Declaration of Independence called "free and independent States" ... and what the Second Amendment means by "free State".

The Real Hawkeye
February 26, 2006, 11:22 AM
Well now wait a minute .... the States came first. The "thirteen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" were already established, and the US Constitution is a compact between them. What you call "little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" ... I think that's what the Declaration of Independence called "free and independent States" ... and what the Second Amendment means by "free State".Naturally, the States were there first. But did you think the Founders had nothing to do with the States prior to the ratification of the 1789 US Constitution? Their philosophy is what led to the revolution in the first place, which in turn led to the establishment of 13 REPUBLICS, not unlimited states under the total rule of the mob. That idea was anathema to them at just about any level.

That said, the US Constitution not only envisioned that States would be Republics (and not unlimited governments under the absolute rule of the majority), but required it in plain language. States are REQUIRED by the US Constitution to provide their citizens with a REPUBLICAN form of government, i.e., NOT DEMOCRACIES, which are the death of republics.

Baron Holbach4
February 26, 2006, 12:32 PM
Pro-gunners should never use the 2nd Amendment to "prove" they have a right to keep and bear arms. We had this right before the Constitution was ratified, and we will have this right after the Constitution is sent through the paper shredder.

It's a bit ironic, but our right to keep and bear arms will be exercised to the fullest after the disappearance of the 2nd Amendment...

Molon Labe, this too is how I see it.

Also, The Real Hawkeye is correct when he says our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Once the last vestige of a republic -- i.e., electoral college -- is dismantled, this country will be on the slippery slope toward absolute democracy/mobocracy/dictatorship by the majority.

hugh damright
February 26, 2006, 03:42 PM
the US Constitution not only envisioned that States would be Republics (and not unlimited governments under the absolute rule of the majority), but required it in plain language. States are REQUIRED by the US Constitution to provide their citizens with a REPUBLICAN form of government, i.e., NOT DEMOCRACIES, which are the death of republics.
The Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government, and that is a guarantee that the majority of each State will remain in control of that State. A republican form of government is a popular or representative form of government.

Again, I do not mean to say that the majority rules directly as if a mobocracy, but rather that in a free State the sovereign or ultimate authority is the majority. It is the most fundamental principle of republican government that the majority ratifies a Constitution, amends it, elects representatives, recalls them ... and that the majority has a right to alter or to abolish government, which requires that the majority control the arms.

Free government is not direct rule by the majority, it is rule by laws consented to by the majority or by their representatives.

The Real Hawkeye
February 26, 2006, 04:00 PM
Hugh, my point is that republics have, as opposed to democracies, constitutions which define and limit the powers of government, and declare all other powers beyond the scope of government. They are not, in other words, totalitarian by nature, whereas democracies are, by nature, totalitarian. Yes, the people, through their representatives, shape the form of the republic's constitution, but men do not rule in a republic, but rather the law, and the highest law is the constitution. This is all contrary to democracy. You cannot assert on the one hand that you mean to say "democracy," but not mob rule. That's what democracy is. Republics are representative, not democratic. Or, at the very least it is accurate to say that democratic republics rapidly and invariably descend into non-republican tyrannies of their majorities.

If you enjoyed reading about "Abandoning the Second Amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!