Quantcast

How far are you willing to go to defend 2A

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Lonestar, Nov 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jnormanh

    jnormanh member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    <<Methinks we're being plagued by a troll .......>>

    Or, perhaps, someone who has faith in the Constitutioin, our government, courts, and the rule of law.
     
  2. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,783
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    No...a comedian.
     
  3. the pistolero

    the pistolero Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
    Methinks you have respect for the aforementioned government and institutions confused with respect for the people who staff those institutions. Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution in and of themselves, in the context of history, don't carry nearly as much moral weight (but, of course, far too much legal weight) as some people seem to think they might...off the top of my head, Plessy v. Ferguson, Kelo v. New London, U.S. v. Cruikshank, and Dred Scott v. Sanford all come to mind (yes, I know Plessy was overturned), and without opening up the abortion can o' beans, there are those out there who think Roe v. Wade, in the words of pro-choice Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley, was a "muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching." (If you really wanted to, I suppose you could go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison (1803) for an example of judicial usurpation...) As far as any kind of gun restrictions, all I can say is I am absolutely certain the Founding Fathers, if they were alive, would be calling for blood with the restrictions under which American citizens operate vis-a-vis firearms, "rule of law" notwithstanding. And am I the only one who finds this appeal to authority quite sickening?
     
  4. Speer

    Speer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    338
    Location:
    USA
    No one is. The 2ndA is clear: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution cleary distinguishes between "the people", "persons" and "States".

    It does. Just as the Founding Fathers intended.

    Are you actually familiar with United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)? The opinion in United States v. Miller never even suggested that the possessor of a firearm must be a member of a militia, and the individual right to keep and bear arms went unquestioned.

    The right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals. Take away that right, and you might as well throw away the 1st Amendment while you're at it.
     
  5. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Location:
    Walnut Hill, about 35 miles west of Auburn, AL
    read my sig

    We all have to die. Will you leave your children a legacy of freedom or slavery?
     
  6. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    45,867
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    jnormanh, would you be so kind as to respond to my post, #92?

    Art
     
  7. zookrider

    zookrider Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Fayetteville, NC
    You are mistaking grant for ennumerate. The 2A does not grant me the right to own a gun, it simply recognizes it. Were the 2A to be repealed, the right would still exsist, only now the government would be infringing upon it. As a soldier I would not participate in the confiscation of firearms. I have to say I'm with Patrick Henry on this one.

    Zook
     
  8. zookrider

    zookrider Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Fayetteville, NC
    Bwahahahaha, if you think that China could invade the US then you need to do a little reading. The entire Chinese Navy isn't even close to a match for one US Carrier Group, let alone the entire Pacific Fleet, and China has no force projection to speak of. Couple that with the fact that the Chinese military is easily 10 years behind ours technologically. Oh yeah, don't forget that we watch China like a hawk, they can't even blow their nose without us knowing about it. China pull off a US invasion, good one.
     
  9. Veprman

    Veprman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Wow, this guy is funny. The Supreem Court is not the supreem law of the land. The meaning of constitution is not meant to be decided by the supreem court. It means exactly what is says. If it can be decided by Judges to mean something else you might as well use the constitution as toilet paper and burn it when your done.

    I really really hope you are a troll, because if your not, then you are blind. noone should have faith in our government. They fail us everyday.
     
  10. TheLastBoyScout

    TheLastBoyScout Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    710
    Location:
    SE PA/ El Cid (SC)
    I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States... What more needs to be said?:cool:
     
  11. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,622
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
    Since this thread is veering way OT anyway.....

    Back when I wore a uniform, we use to wargame the PRC invading Taiwan. We referred to it as "The Million Man Swim." :evil:

    What it basically came down to: they could probably put up an somewhat effective air and naval blockade of their "pesky little brother", their subs woud be "troublesome", but if we (the US) put on the "full conventional monty" we'd have the ALOC's and SLOC's open in short order.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    572
    jnormanh

    You posted the above in response to my post questioning whether you had ever read Miller. My post was number 87. If you go back and look at it, you will see that the only thing I quote is the actual case, U.S. v. Miller!

    I quote the case, and you accuse me of quoting NRA propaganda! :D I guess that answers my question: No, you have not read the case. Otherwise, you would have known what I was quoting, wouldn't you? :eek:
     
  13. jcoiii

    jcoiii Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    NE TN
    How far am I willing to go to defend the 2a? As far as I'm willing to go to protect the others.
     
  14. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,831
    The 2A is only one of the several that require vigilant watch. Of the original 10, I do believe the only one not yet violated in one form or another by Congress or the Executive or ruled upon by Black Clad Judicial legal beagle visitors from other planets who seem to have no inkling of the COTUS/BOR's, would be number 3.

    Each of the others have been violated due to the stated Wars on Alcohol, Communism, Drugs, Terror, and Crime in general.

    Citizens (?) of this fine nation have publically stated they'd rather give up "some" of their rights in order to be safe (whatever that is).

    I think all here would rather fight using the ballot. Only problem being, once elected officials who get into office by promising any and everything to 50% +1 to get elected, they tend to listen to the guys with the $$$. Some may fear for THEIR safety due to their actions while others seek to find ways to infringe on ALL or AS MANY of the populace's rights as they are able in order to hold onto their newfound power(s).

    But we all know this. Madison knew this. Jefferson, et al... all knew human nature. They knew and saw that only an armed people could live in a free state of being. They judged that to be more important than a "safe" state I reckon (I don't see much language guaranteeing living in a "Safe" nation or state. Life has inherent risks).

    Some swear by an oath and live it. To others, they're just meaningless words.

    I opine that the 120 million people killed by their own governments in the 20th century wished they'd at least gone down fighting... but alas. They could not.

    I reserve that right.

    Too bad for those other 120 million. They ended up with neither liberty nor safety. Some smart old white guy with bi-focals might've offered them some advice, if they'd only been willing to listen and retained the tools useful to be able to act upon it. Instead of saying "I'd better obey that new law".

    But it's not JUST about the 2A, rather ALL of our rights, enumerated or otherwise. (There's that pesky 9A talking)

    But whaddaIknow?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice