How far are you willing to go to defend 2A

[jnormanh]

<<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.

 

[Tommygunn]

No...a comedian.

 

[the pistolero]

That's what you think of our three-part system of government and the Constitution which created it? That's what you think of some of the finest jurists our country has produced? Where is you respect for our Constitution and government?

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?

 

[Speer]

Don't be confused about what the second amendment says.

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".

Some think the second amendment gaurantees the right of all citizens to bear arms.

It does. Just as the Founding Fathers intended.

The final decision about what the second amendment means has been settled since 1939 when the Supreme Court ruled in US v Miller that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms to individual citizens. It's been tested in the Supreme Court many times since, and it always comes down in support of the original 1939 decision.

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.

 

[BigFatKen]

read my sig

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

 

[Art Eatman]

jnormanh, would you be so kind as to respond to my post, #92?

Art

 

[zookrider]

If the 2nd amendment was repealed tomorrow, those in the military took an oath to support and defended the constitution of the US. That includes defending legal changes to the constitution by the US government. At that point nothing in the constitution says we have the right to bear arms. Guns would a controlled/illegal thing, just like drugs. Are members of THR willing to kill a cop to protect an illegal item in their possession?

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

 

[zookrider]

I only chose the Chinese because after the fall of the USSR, they are the only country able to pull an invasion of the US off.

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.

 

[Veprman]

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.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States... What more needs to be said?

 

[scout26]

Since this thread is veering way OT anyway.....

I only chose the Chinese because after the fall of the USSR, they are the only country able to pull an invasion of the US off.

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

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

jnormanh

You can quote NRA propaganda all you like . . .

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! 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?

 

[jcoiii]

How far am I willing to go to defend the 2a? As far as I'm willing to go to protect the others.

 

[Baba Louie]

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?