Supreme Court to Hear DC Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that it IS an individual right to preserve a collective power... whether or not the collective power (physically or actually) exists.

BINGO!!

No, not bingo. An "individual right" to serve some collective power is not a right at all. You've twisted what should be a basic freedom into some bizarre obligation to serve the state. A requirement to serve is not a right. Indeed its a notion alien to the founders.

Incorrect, the state is in charge of them except solely when they are called into federal sevice.

True, and what keeps a state from deciding it no longer needs to have a militia? Most have done away with thier own militias since the CW, and the unorganized militias are mostly dead letter that could be erased completely with a single law. If the unorganized militia code for a state is repealed, and the similar provisions at the federal level are repealed--how can there be a RKBA under your interpretation? In other words, your interpretation makes a constitutional right dependant on a series of archaic statutes.
 
So the Second in your book is nothing but a justification for conscription? Some individual right. I have a right to be called up at any time by the state and need to bring my own rifle because they can't afford to give me one.

Twist my words any way you want, bud, I'm not going to argue with you. The founding fathers didn't view it as a justification for conscription. If you can't be called to defend your family, town, or state, then you just stay home. If I have a rifle and I am able, I'll answer the call.
 
If you can't be called to defend your family, town, or state, then you just stay home. If I have a rifle and I am able, I'll answer the call.

The RKBA isn't about "answering the call" of the government. It's not a right to serve in the state militia, it's a right to keep and bear arms. I refuse to accept this notion that we only have a right to keep and bear arms as part of some theoretical militia group. That's exactly the line of thinking that brought us the "collective rights" view supported by antis.

In my book, the RKBA is as much about taking up arms AGAINST the community as for it. The classic example would be an armed freedman shooting various community leaders in white sheets. In many ways that's the purest example of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. The freedman was never going to be called up by the community. The community wanted him dead. But the right remained.
 
I hope you aren't suggesting people attempt to write or call the Supremes. Judges really, really don't like hearing from the "people" about how they should vote. They don't respond well to direct pressure at all. Letters to the editor, calls to politicians, fine. Attempts to influence the judiciary will just 1) backfire and 2) get you on lists you really don't want to be on.

No to calling or writing the supremes, but something tells me they will maybe at least hear our sentiments echoing through the media... It's a whole lot better than just praying.

I once heard an old saying from someone spiritual: "God can move mountains, but bring a shovel"...
 
True, and what keeps a state from deciding it no longer needs to have a militia? Most have done away with thier own militias since the CW, and the unorganized militias are mostly dead letter that could be erased completely with a single law. If the unorganized militia code for a state is repealed, and the similar provisions at the federal level are repealed--how can there be a RKBA under your interpretation? In other words, your interpretation makes a constitutional right dependant on a series of archaic statutes.

Not at all. It is an individual right, whether or not the militia exists. At the risk of being condescending, let me repeat: IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ANY MILITIA OF ANY KIND.
 
Quote:
the false idea that there existed a class of citizens as understood at the time outside the militia.

There was and there is such a class. All females, for one thing. And everyone over a certain age. The fact that the average life span in the 18th century was XY does not mean anything. I don't want my RKBA turning on whether or not the average colonial Joe lived to be fifty or forty. So the fact that the question presented looks specifically to someone OUTSIDE the militia is a good sign. I don't want this to be about the @#$@ militia. To hades with the militia.

Quote:
Allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties and every free male had a duty to render his service to his community for its protection.

Don't confuse rhetoric with reality. There was no conscription until the Civil War. And the militia was called up from among armed VOLUNTEERS, not conscripts. There was no requirement that everyone be armed. I'm not at all sure where you got that idea.
.

Quite amusing. We are talking about the Second Amendment Ratified in 1791 right? Females had the right of self-defence but were never considered part of the militia until the late 20th century. Free negroes were part of the militia but were not allowed to be armed. The meaning of the Second Amendment is founded upon those who wrote and ratified it. That means that all free white males were to be armed and ready for service. There was no corps of organized and unorganized militia as is the practice today


That's not rhetoric, that's the Virginia Constitution and the law:

1) "By abandoning the helm of Government and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection." Va. Const. June 29, 1776


2) "WHEREAS allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and those who will not bear the former are not entitled to the benefits of the latter: "An act to oblige the free male inhabitants of this state above a certain age to give assurance of Allegiance to the same, and for other purposes. May 1777.

There was a draft during the American Revolution:

"It is farther enacted, That, for securing the completion of the said regiments, a number of men shall be draughted from the single men of the militia of the several counties, and the city of Williamsburg, whether officers or privates, above eighteen years of age, who have no child, in the following proportions," An Act for speedily recruiting the Virginia Regiments on the continental establishment and for raising additional troops of Volunteers." October 1777.
 
IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ANY MILITIA OF ANY KIND.

Then it has nothing to do with the militia and we can forget about the militia. We can also forget about having to justify arms for the community or city or state or federal government. Good.
 
We are talking about the Second Amendment Ratified in 1791 right? Females had the right of self-defence but were never considered part of the militia until the late 20th century. Free negroes were part of the militia but were not allowed to be armed. The meaning of the Second Amendment is founded upon those who wrote and ratified it. That means that all free white males were to be armed and ready for service.

I see no such law that all free white men be armed and ready for service. But assuming there was such a law, and as you say only free white men were armed, so what? Surely the Second should not be interpreted within those confines today. Yet it would be if we limited it to the scope of the militia in the 18th century.

allegiance and protection are reciprocal

So you think I should have to pledge to use arms in service of the state in order to have them?
 
Den---you mean you would hesitate to shoot a JBT coming to take your guns??

To me---that would be the signal to take my country back.

hopefully we are not there yet.

it does seem to be getting closer, although since we can't even get gun owners to vote reliably, I don't expect open rebellion.
 
The Second Amendment will die next summer and Bush's JBTs will go house to house collecting our guns.

Don't be foolish. The Second has been all but dead in the courts for generations now, as every lawyer knows. We're hoping this ruling will revive the thing. If it doesn't, we just go back to the way it's been most of our lives.
 
SCOTUS may hear and decide in May '08 right in the middle of presidential election campaigning.

Good. Make the candidates take a stand.
 
If I missed this, forgive me:

Which justices voted to hear the case & what might this reflect.

(No Joke: 4 US Army Blackhawks just flew 150 above my apartment!! Prepare to defend! :eek: )
 
No matter which way SCOTUS goes, Hillary Clinton will look at the polls and either condemn or praise them. All based on polls.
 
Could someone give me a synopsis of what the antis are saying about this? I don't have the stomach to visit their websites and sift through their drivel first hand.
 
Could someone give me a synopsis of what the antis are saying about this? I don't have the stomach to visit their websites and sift through their drivel first hand.

If the case is overturned world hunger will end, we will all get along, and there will be a cure for the common cold. The budget will balance, health care will be universal, and Social Security will be magically fixed.

If the case is upheld we will all die a horrible death as gun owners rampage through the streets, shooting indescriminantly. Then the gun will come alive and turn on the gun owners. After that the planet will plunge into the sun.

Brad
 
I find this quote from the D.C. attorneys interesting.....


"The petition filed by D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said the appeals court was wrong for three reasons: because it recognized an individual rather than a collective right; because the Second Amendment serves as a restriction only on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights; and because the District is within its rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun. "


So is she saying that the federal government has no right to pass laws that go against state recognized gun rights??? It sounds to me like she's saying that any federal law that regulates firearms would be null and void if a state passed laws that granted those rights.

I just hope that this thing settles the whole "collective vs. individual" thing once and for all. Based on the SC's wording, it sounds like that is what they plan to do.







"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top