mcarterbrown.com  

General Chat MCB's Coffee House: Pull up a seat, and grab your favorite caffeinated beverage. Non-paintball related chat within.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-25-2006, 04:07 AM   #21 (permalink)
Fleshy-Headed Mutant
 
PolarMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Alaska

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike31c
Did you actually read that page? I have and its disturbing. According to them, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means "the right of the police/military/government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They are interpreting the Constitution in ways that benefit their agenda, not in the way that the framers intended.

Quoted from that page:
Quote:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
Notice the bold part. In other words they are saying that our military is so powerful that our right to bear arms doesn't matter, therefore it isn't worth defending. That is a very dangerous attitude to have. They may be steadfast defenders of the First Amendment but they care not for that pesky second one.
PolarMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 04:46 AM   #22 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
mike31c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California

Quote:
They may be steadfast defenders of the First Amendment but they care not for that pesky second one.
That's your opinion. Something you are entitled to. Something guaranteed by the first amendment in the first place.

Quote:
They are interpreting the Constitution in ways that benefit their agenda, not in the way that the framers intended.
no, that is also false.
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

That is a Supreme Court interpretation, not just the ACLU.
mike31c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 06:20 AM   #23 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
shartley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Manchester, NH

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike31c


And who are YOU to decide what is "moral"?
I am ME. I decide what I consider moral or not. If you read my post it is clear ā€œIā€ was writing it. But it is also clear to anyone who is not simply out to argue with people that the ACLU does NOT take on cases based on any moral standards. They ARE in fact about the letter of the law (or how their lawyers interpret that letter) and nothing else. This is similar to how some defense attorneys work.

Now you may disagree on what is moral or not, but it is foolish to argue that the ACLU bases any of their cases on ANY moral standards. They simply do not.
shartley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 09:07 AM   #24 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

Quote:
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.
Why is it that when lawyers and judges are involved, simple, basic, reading comprehension and common sense go flying out the door?

Why on earth would the government need a "right" spelled out that it was allowed to arm itself? Even at the local level it is so obvious that it would simply go without saying. EVERY nation by a matter of course arms the enforcers of the law, to presume otherwise is to pretend you are in some dream land.

So, since it OBVIOUSLY doesn't mean that cops get to carry guns, what does it mean?

Well your first clue is in the word used for who's right it is.

"The right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed"

Notice, it did not say the right of the "States" or "towns", or "governors"..

The portion
Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
is explaining why the "People's" right should not be infringed.

Let's break it down. What is the right?

To bear arms.

Who's named as the owner of said right?

The people.

Why is this right to not be infringed?

In order to secure a free state by being able to call up a militia out of the people who need a minimum of training, since they have experience with handling arms.

Remember the context.

They just fought a war with the british, where the people rose up, and used thier own arms to overthrow tyranny.

The ACLU's possition that armed citizenry couldn't hope to combat a modern military is ludecrous. Look at how hard it is to route out terrorists, hdden amongst the civilians in Iraq, and so forth. Mostly what those guys are using is small arms, and home made bombs. It would be effective enough that the government couldn't simply disregard resistance like they could if the populace was totally disarmed. IMagine how much harder it would be on our own soil, to go after people in neighborhoods that some of the soldiers may have grown up in. They would really, REALLY have to believe in the cause for attacking, wouldn't they?

Look at the case in Darfur, do you really think that the villages of people getting massacred would happen if they were all armed, and knew how to use thier guns?

They wouldn't go down without a big fight, and the government would have to realize that, and they wouldn't be able to control so many of the people with so few soldiers.

They would be forced to either comprimise, or expend gigantic amounts of money and manpower to truly subdue an armed populace.

I really wish the spreme court and other types would just stop ignoring the rules of the english language, and reading what thy want to see in this 2nd ammendment.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 09:25 AM   #25 (permalink)
Mod/mod
 
Drum's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Trenchtown

Fan of EMR





Hey Chris,
Where are you going to set up your "terrorist/freedom fighter" training camp after the SHTF?
Do you think those liberal bastids at the campus would let you use the lacrosse field?

:P
Drum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 10:34 AM   #26 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

Well, the reason terrorist camps are needed, is because the "freedom fighters" over there are usually people who haven't handled guns, and need to be trained on how to shoot and stuff.

The purpose of this ammendment is so that very little training is needed to defend the homeland. Look at it even today, in spite of the various laws.

IN other words, terrorist training camps aren't needed here in the US, most people have gone hunting, and have at least handled a gun before. Terrorist training camps usually operate in nations where it is totally illegal, and not allowed to have any contact with weapons unless you either belong to one of the rebel militias, or the government. everyone else is not permitted to have any contact with them, therefore they don't even know how to take the safety off, or see if it is loaded.

Do you honestly think any nation could actually invade the US and occupy it, even if our military was somehow defeated? Do you honestly think a seriously draconian set of laws could be instantly instituted in the US very easily either?

There'd be snipers everywhere, and etcetera and so forth. The only reason we really need as big of a military as we have today is to go into places like Iraq and WW2 and WW1 and KOrea, and Vietnam, etc.

I am not planning any training camp, but I do know how to shoot straight, and I do pity the fool who would break in my house while I am home if I hear him. I am truly glad that I am allowed to at least try to defend myself in this nation, unlike some others where you are expected to wait and see if the cops show up. Some nations go so far as to say that if you attempt to defend yourself, YOU are actually liable and treated as the criminal. INSANITY!

It is true, the distinction between a freeman and a slave is that the freeman is allowed to go armed.

Last edited by Christian Nelson; 07-25-2006 at 10:41 AM.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 11:02 AM   #27 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

A couple of quotes to ponder on the subject of arms as realting to whether the ACLU, if they were truly interested in the rights and made no judgements of their own on those rights.

Quote:
“And I cannot see, why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty. . . .The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He who has nothing, and belongs to another, must be defended by him, and needs no arms: but he who thinks he is his own master, and has anything he may call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself and what he possesses, or else he lives precariously and at discretion. And though for a while those who have the sword in their power abstain from doing him injury; yet, by degrees, he will be awed into submission to every arbitrary command.” Andrew Fletcher, Political Works, pp. 35 and 221 (1749).

“Editor Loyal Georgian: Have colored persons a right to own and carry firearms?--A Colored Citizen
Almost every day we are asked questions similar to the above. We answer certainly you have the same right to own and carry arms that other citizens have. You are not only free but citizens of the United States and as such entitled to the same privileges granted to other citizens by the Constitution. . . .
Article II, of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, gives the people the right to bear arms, and states that this right shall not be infringed. Any person, white or black, may be disarmed if convicted of making an improper or dangerous use of weapons, but no military or civil officer has the right or authority to disarm any class of people, thereby placing them at the mercy of others. All men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.” From issues of the Loyal Georgian, January 20, 27 and February 3, 1866. [a prominent black newspaper discussing the impact of the 14h. Amendment’s prohibition of the individual state’s ability to deny black citizens their federal civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights]
Pay special attention to the reference in the last lines about the 14th amendment prohibiting states from denying citizens the right to bear arms.

I wonder how New Jersey and Washington DC, and California get away with it?

Why hasn't the Supreme court come in there?
Where is the ACLU on this?

Easy answer, they only care about furthering thier political agenda, not the rights listed by the founders.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 11:23 AM   #28 (permalink)
Red=Moderator
 
Schmitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albany. NY

Quote:
Do you honestly think a seriously draconian set of laws could be instantly instituted in the US very easily either?
Well...I wouldn't say they have been draconian.... but obviously our government has managed to control the gun ownership rights of civilians for some time now... here's a link to Wikipedias read on US Gun Politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol..._United_States

Seems that the citizens of the US have been increasingly regulated with regards to firearm ownership for the past century.....

The solution would seem to be that if citizens had problems regarding how they were governed they would elect officials to office that were truely representative of the wishes and desires of the constituents who voted for them..... but that sounds too much like a democracy
Schmitti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 11:40 AM   #29 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
mike31c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California

Quote:
Easy answer, they only care about furthering thier political agenda, not the rights listed by the founders.
Wrong. Typical answer from someone who refuses to understand the real mission of the ACLU. They stand to defend the US Constitution for EVERYONE living and breathing in the USA. And, unlike some other political hack groups, they do not choose which fights to pick based on popular opinions or what religious beliefs they share.

besides, I didn't realize that defending the Constitution to make sure it applies to EVERYONE was a "political agenda" not supported by everyone. I just assumed everyone living in a democracy like the US would support freedom for everyone. Excuse me for being wrong on that.

Secondly, as for the rights not listed by the founders, well that's why we have amendments...

Quote:
Pay special attention to the reference in the last lines about the 14th amendment prohibiting states from denying citizens the right to bear arms.
What are you talking about?
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


What part of the 14 amendment are you claiming the States are infringing upon?

Last edited by mike31c; 07-25-2006 at 12:24 PM.
mike31c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2006, 12:47 PM   #30 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
The states cannot pass laws which infringe on the rights specifically listed by the bill of rights.

Did you actually read what you pasted in? It's in the firstsection, second sentence.

By the way, the second ammendment IS a freedom, for every citizen.

Shmitti,

The gun laws have been like the ever warmer water eventually boiling the frog in the pan.

I hope that eventually we will get an awareness in the nation to vote legislators of that type out.

Also, we aren't a democracy, we are a representative republic.

The founders knew that full democracy was a problem, so they placed the constitution as a LIMIT to the democracy. FREEDOM was thier primary goal.

Unfortunately, that limit is only as good as those who interpret the constitution, and if you have all three branches of the government colluding, then the consitution is eroded.

Last edited by Christian Nelson; 07-25-2006 at 01:05 PM.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » General » General Chat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC