"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:43:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

You're going to get in over your head on this one, Watcher, if you keep
it
up. In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been
superseded, both in fact and under law. The 2nd is at least partially
obsolete and non-functional.

Based on YOUR declaration that it's so? Sorry, I don't recognize your
authority.

It's not my authority, Watcher. It's well documented in the law.


On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second
amendment
plainly states it.

No need for historical references? Then you're in deep water. If you divorce
the militia history and references from the 2nd, you're left with no
restrictions on the states to outlaw any guns they want, any time they want,
for any reason they want. Without the militia requirements upon the states,
imposed by the Constitution by way of the 2nd, the feds have no authority to
tell the states what to do about private ownership of guns. They'd have a
completely free hand.

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:41:21 -0800, The Independent of Clackamas
County wrote:



Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:00:40 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Guess what...we dont have to appease them any more.


Fire at will, eh?


Fire at "Will!!!"

Hell no "FIRE AT CLIFF!!!!"

The Independent of Clackamas County

If you cannot defend your crazy claims
& "thinking" do you deserve to ......?

Copy & paste blogs are not thus.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:17:47 +0000, Guido wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:02:56 +0000, Guido wrote:



If you look careful you'll see that you didn't ask any
question of Cliff.


Spoilsport G.
There should be a law against giving idiots too many free clues
all at once .... LOL ... clearly it's not good for them ......

You'll note that it didn't do him any good.

What should have been expected?
LOL
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:47:11 GMT, Clark Magnuson
wrote:



Johan wrote:



Where does one draw the
line? Where does one say: "This far and not a millimeter farther?

Too late: the line was crossed in 1934.





I agree with you Johan, the line was drawn in 1791 with the words, "in
no way infringe".
The bill of rights and constitution are just pieces of paper that cannot
protect us. WE need to protect those rights, and those that passively
condoned the 1934 NFA committed a grave error.
It was like passively condoning your wife sleeping at her boyfriend's
house. Next she sleeps with him in your house [1968 GCA], and next she
wants you to move out [1994 AWB].
The moral is, "Don't tolerate the transgressions."



What are you going to do? Shoot?


How did the voters respond to the 1994 AWB?
How did McVeigh respond to the 1994 AWB?
With a building gone and the democrat majority gone, would you have
liked a bigger response?

--
Be careful what you pray for, it can happen.

"Strabo" wrote in message
news
In OT Guns more Guns on Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, by
Cliff, we read:

Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Except that states don't have 'rights'. Individuals
have Rights.

The BOR was included to obligate the Federal government
to ensure those Rights, to protect them.

Well, it was more like a promise by the federal government that it wouldn't
*abridge* them. That was why the anti-Federalists, and the states they
dominated, demanded a Bill of Rights in the first place.

It wasn't to "ensure" those rights over the heads of the states, although,
since the 14th Amendment, that has been the result in the case of most other
Amendments.

Not for collectives,
not for classes, not for states, but for each individual.

There are two uses of "rights" under Constitutional law, Strabo. The first
is the one you're talking about. The other is protections for states, or for
other authorities, against intrusion by other institutions of government.
Thus, "states' rights," a favorite phrase even among the most hard-boiled
originalists among Constitutional scholars and judges.

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:11:08 GMT, Strabo wrote:

In OT Guns more Guns on Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, by
Cliff, we read:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:32:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snipped
I'm not following your question

Ed,
At one time he nation pretty much depended on
calling up militias for any military needs.
At one time the 2nd ammendment was enacted.
Currently, and for many decades, the US has
had a standing professional military ...

But what is the cronology?
Was the 2nd enacted before the standing military
existed? I suspect so but .... in which case it was
in support of the prior militias, which might be considered to
nolonger exist.

Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Except that states don't have 'rights'. Individuals
have Rights.

Wrong.

The BOR was included to obligate the Federal government
to ensure those Rights, to protect them. Not for collectives,
not for classes, not for states, but for each individual.

You are always this confused?
Ever tried a Jr. HS Civics class? History class?
Clearly not any logic classes.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:49:48 GMT, Clark Magnuson
wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:47:11 GMT, Clark Magnuson
wrote:



Johan wrote:



Where does one draw the
line? Where does one say: "This far and not a millimeter farther?

Too late: the line was crossed in 1934.





I agree with you Johan, the line was drawn in 1791 with the words, "in
no way infringe".
The bill of rights and constitution are just pieces of paper that cannot
protect us. WE need to protect those rights, and those that passively
condoned the 1934 NFA committed a grave error.
It was like passively condoning your wife sleeping at her boyfriend's
house. Next she sleeps with him in your house [1968 GCA], and next she
wants you to move out [1994 AWB].
The moral is, "Don't tolerate the transgressions."



What are you going to do? Shoot?


How did the voters respond to the 1994 AWB?
How did McVeigh respond to the 1994 AWB?
With a building gone and the democrat majority gone, would you have
liked a bigger response?

What are you going to do? Shoot?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:02:22 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:22:41 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Ah...no. What Im telling you is that Regulated means working smoothly,
in good order, functioning correctly.

BB,
See?
Exactly the *opposite* of what Ed said.

Cliff:

I did this once already. Why do you persist in marginalizing
yourself?

Ed said:
"Yeah, there are enough other historical examples and references to make
it
clear that a "well regulated militia" meant one that was trained and
disciplined. Gunner really isn't off the mark with his definition."

Do you really see a fundamental difference between "...working
smoothly, in good order, functioning correctly - and - "...trained and
disciplined"?

BB,
Are you having problems following poor Gunner in his
wanderings?
BTW, What parts did who snip & from which posts?
--
Cliff

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"David Moffitt" wrote in message
k.net...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Guido" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:


Or do you call Blackstone a blogger as well?


On second thoughts he does seem to be a blogger who just
happens to be a law professor.

In most instances these law professors are wrong, its only
when the courts accept their writing as correct that they do
indeed become so. Which are the precedent and opinion books
that your SC accepts?

There's a heirarchy of "recognized authorities." Regarding the Bill of
Rights, at the top of the list is the transcript of the First
Congress's
debates over the writing of the Bill. Since the Senate did not record
its
debates, we have only those of the House. And, in regard to the 2nd,
it
is
not a favorite source for defenders of the 2nd Amendment. g

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is making a play to establish a
broader
historical basis for interpretation of the 2nd. See the Emerson case,
5th
Circuit. It's 100 pages, heavily referenced, and an impressive piece
of
work.

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights
models
for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller,
that
it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually
a
member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training,
to
privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol
involved
here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of
the
general kind or type excluded by Miller." -- EMERSON V. US 2001 WL
1230757
(5TH CIR)

Let's complete that paragraph, Dave, for the sake of clarity:

"However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8),
as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights
under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as
to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights."

The court sort of took a dump and then scooted away. There's a reason they
did that, which is one of the strange things about this case. And it's a
*really* strange case, although very interesting.

Having seen a number of your posts, and the quality of thinking that goes
into them, I'm going to guess that you picked that up from some pro-gun
site
and that you haven't actually read the case. You may not know, therefore,
what the conclusion was:

%%%% I have had it on disc since the ruling to use at appropriate times.


"However, for the reasons stated, we also conclude that the predicate
order
in question here is sufficient, albeit likely minimally so, to support the
deprivation, while it remains in effect, of the defendant's Second
Amendment
rights. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the
indictment on Second Amendment grounds."

In other words, the operation was successful, but the patient died. g

%%%% Just like in the Miller case. He also had a second ammendment right but
it did not apply in the case being heard.


There are a lot of exceptions allowed by the findings in Emerson,
including
these:

"Likewise, the Supreme Court has remarked that the right to keep
and bear arms is, like other rights protected by the Bill of Rights,
"subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the
necessities of the case" and hence "is not infringed by laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons," Robertson v. Baldwin,
17 S.Ct. 326, 329 (1897), or by laws "which only forbid bodies of men
to associate together as military organizations . . . to drill or
parade in cities and towns unless authorized by law." Presser v.
Illinois, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584 (1886).

(Gunner may find that last note interesting, in another context.)

Anyway, it was a hell of a lot of work to produce nothing but obiter dicta
(that's opinion that's incidental to the case, and therefore not binding,
nor does it stand as precedent), as judge Robert Parker wrote in his
"specially concurring" opinion in the case:

"I concur in the opinion except for Section V. I choose
not to join Section V, which concludes that the right to keep
and bear arms under the Second Amendment is an individual
right, because it is dicta and is therefore not binding on us
or on any other court. The determination whether the rights
bestowed by the Second Amendment are collective or individual
is entirely unnecessary to resolve this case and has no
bearing on the judgment we dictate by this opinion. The fact
that the 84 pages of dicta contained in Section V are
interesting, scholarly, and well written does not change the
fact that they are dicta and amount to at best an advisory
treatise on this long-running debate."

%%%% Golly Gee. One judge didn't join the decision. Now how often does that
happen?


Judge Parker is taking one hell of a shot at his compadres, calling their
84
pages of scholarly work irrelevant to the case. g

%%%% Judges do disagree with each other at times. ;o)


In other words, the case will be interesting and useful advisory
information
for future cases, by this court or any other court, but it doesn't have
the
weight of precedent.

%%%% Only time will tell.


It's one more frustration in the attempt to get binding and precedential
rulings on the 2nd Amendment.

%%%% The Supremes do not want to touch it with a sterlized crowbar.



--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"David Moffitt" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:09:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to
the
states, or to the federal government, depending upon the time
period
you're
talking about and the particular authority you mean.

Wrong again..have you forgotten the 10Th Amendment?

"powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States
or to the people."

Since the States were not mentioned as sole controllers of the
militias...nor was the Federal government, and both the States and
the
Federals could draw on the militia...it would appear the militia is
a
pool under no ones organization. It is is in the perview of the
States
to pick officers, and to provide training, but thats pretty much it
until it is called to action.

Thank you, professor Gunner. g I'll just tell you what any law
professor
or Constitutional authority will tell you: You're full of ****.

Find us some legal opinion to back that up, please. You may want to
start
with Houston v. Moore (1820):

"The power of Congress over the militia 'being unlimited, except in
the
two
particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised
to
any
extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of
the
state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed
prior
to
the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by
that
instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to
the
paramount law of the General Government . . .'''

{from FindLaw annotations of Article 1 of the Constitution, Clauses 15
and
16 (the Militia), quoting from "Houston."}


The Militia Act of 1795 also required that each State enroll every
person between the age of 18 and 45 in the militia and to provide
training and musters.

Under STATE control.

Since that has fallen by the wayside, it would
appear that the States have no interest in the militia per se, and
then the duty would fall back on the individuals as desired.

Keep your day job, Gunner. 8-)

The most current "legal opinion" as you requested circa 2001

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights
models
for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller,
that
it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually
a
member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training,
to
privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol
involved
here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of
the
general kind or type excluded by Miller." -- EMERSON V. US 2001 WL
1230757
(5TH CIR)

Get a day job Ed. )

Dave, Gunner was talking about who has authority over militia
organizations.
The quote you lifted from Emerson concerns the individual right to keep
and
bear arms, which is a separate subject. It also is obiter dicta and is
limited to the territory of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Everywhere
else in the US, it is meaningless.

If you had actually read the Emerson case, you'd see that they concurred
with the Supreme Court ruling in Presser that the state has the authority
to
outlaw private militias. Every court that's addressed the issue has
decided
the same thing.

You're good with Control-C and Control-V, Dave, but that seems to be the
extent of your knowledge on this subject.

Now, drumroll and rimshot, in which Dave displays his mental capabilities
with a two- or three-word invective reply. Go for it, Dave...

%%%% I can't do it in 2 or 3 words. It will take at least 5 words.


Ed Huntress

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snips)

No need for historical references? Then you're in deep water. If you divorce
the militia history and references from the 2nd, you're left with no
restrictions on the states to outlaw any guns they want, any time they want,
for any reason they want. Without the militia requirements upon the states,
imposed by the Constitution by way of the 2nd, the feds have no authority to
tell the states what to do about private ownership of guns. They'd have a
completely free hand.

Unlike some amendments, the 2nd isn't aimed at any
particular level or branch of government, therefore it
applies to all levels and branches of government equally,
including the states. Unfortunately, that obvious fact
doesn't stop them. And so long as gun ban supporters (you?)
have the majority and the power, and want it that way, it
will be. The Constitution itself has no enforcement
mechanism. It's just a piece of paper -- ignored whenever
the politicians and/or the majority wish to ignore it.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

You're going to get in over your head on this one, Watcher, if you keep it
up. In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been
superseded, both in fact and under law. The 2nd is at least partially
obsolete and non-functional.

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights, you're going to find yourself right back
in
the lap of the militia. Look at the references in the Emerson case, for
example. They don't deny an individual RKBA, but the overwhelming weight
of
the historical support comes from the need for the *common defense*, with
almost nothing that can be tied to the 2nd in relation to *personal
defense*. The versions of the 2nd that were proposed by a few states,
which
included other reasons than the militia phrase, were rejected in the
writing
of the actual amendment.

Furthermore, you have to look at the legal status of the Bill of Rights at
the time it was written. It was a set of prohibitions on the FEDERAL
government -- promises by the federal government to the states that they
wouldn't usurp their authority or the rights that the STATES presumed for
their citizens, to satisfy the demands made by several states, in order
for
them to ratify the Constitution. Nowhere in the history of the
Constitution,
nor in Supreme Court rulings since then, has the 2nd been "incorporated."
In
other words, states' rights still apply to the 2nd, as long as the states
don't construe to deny the federal government its authority to call up
state
militias for federal service.

If you think it's simple, it isn't. It never was. The route by which the
RKBA was reached by the 5th Circuit Court was a back-door one, by way of
the
history supporting an unorganized militia for the common defense. If the
S.C. finds in favor of an RKBA, if it ever hears such a case, it will be
by
the same route. The fact that the unorganized militia is functional only
in
theory might complicate a S.C. ruling, but not necessarily so. Originalist
Justices probably would find about the same way the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals found in Emerson.

But not by analyzing the grammar of the 2nd. It's a cockeyed sentence,
anyway; a nominative-absolute construction, with only one clause, and a
preamble phrase of questionable relation to the clause. The intent of the
2nd isn't going to be found in a dictionary or a grammar book. The 5th
Circuit Court's analysis in the Emerson case is as close as anyone is
going
to get to it.

Ed Huntress

Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a): "The militia of the United States
consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except
as provided in section 313 of title 32 [National Guard age
limitations], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard." Section 311(b: "The classes of the militia are (1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the
members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or
the Naval Militia."

%%%% I'm a member of the unorganized militia in my state.

"Johan" wrote in message
...


Those are your fellow citizens, Gunner. They have as much right to
decide
what goes on here as you do.

Ed Huntress



No they do not.

Those are your fellow citizens, Ed. Do they have as much right to
declare that all persons named Ed Huntress or Gunner or John Husvar must
be hanged from light poles?

Well, yeah, actually, they do. In the end, it all depends on them having the
sense to use democratic rule in a sensible and reasonable way. When you
consider what they *might* do with it, you have to give them a lot of credit
in that department.


How the Hell did you get out of my killfile anyway?

'Dunno. Maybe your computer sprung a leak?

I suppose now I have
to go make it a global kill.

There's an appropriate metaphor, all right.

snip


Why on God's green earth would anyone care what emotionally-driven
cowards, who can't seem to reason past tautology, think about your
choice of firearm. Why should anyone?

Maybe because they're pretty good at recognizing a nutball when they see
one. And they don't think that the idea of armed nutballs being allowed to
own massively destructive weapons is a good one. And *that's* because the
usual, after-the-fact approach we prefer to take regarding restraint tends
to result in bunches of people being shot to death, at random and often by
surprise.

It's one of those things that tests your principles. It's a question of
whether you think the Constitution is a suicide pact.


"If nobody can get guns, then there won't be any gun crimes." Well, no
kidding! Welcome back to the age of biggest and strongest rules. I
suppose that's not so bad. After all, we now live in an era where them
as has the gold makes the rules, assisted by them as can convince the
population that a simple majority represents goodness, right, and truth.

Feh! Utter nonsense.

So, solve the democracy problem. Go threaten to shoot 'em if they don't do
things your way. Bring some 20-round magazines. They tend to impress.

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:13:57 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:33:33 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

And another astute policital observer explains the reasons he supports
20-round magazines...

Nope. Another astue person explains one reason he opposes caving in to
irrational demands from neurotic people.

Those are the gunnutz, right? That so badly need to go blasting
away at anything that moves (and much that does not)?

An unarmed opponent ...... want to try for 1 out of 12?

If you can't recognize logic how could you expect to count logical arguments?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:34:49 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Based on YOUR declaration that it's so? Sorry, I don't recognize your authority.

Who has the most & biggest guns? That's "authority", right?

That's ONE form of authority. That's a stronger authority than some idiot on the
internet making a proclamation and expecting people to respect it. :/

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second amendment
plainly states it.

States what??

If you don't know what the 2nd Amendment states you shouldn't even be here. :/

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snip)
It's not my authority, Watcher.

Well, at least you got that part right.

It's well documented in the law.

OK, which law.


On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second
amendment
plainly states it.

No need for historical references?

Yes, when the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states something, there's no need to
interpret it, is there. The only reason someone would have to want to interpret
is would be maybe because they wouldn't want to accept what was plainly stated
there.


Then you're in deep water. If you divorce
the militia history and references from the 2nd, you're left with no
restrictions on the states to outlaw any guns they want, any time they want,
for any reason they want. Without the militia requirements upon the states,
imposed by the Constitution by way of the 2nd, the feds have no authority to
tell the states what to do about private ownership of guns. They'd have a
completely free hand.

Yeah, if they do like you, and ignore the entire second half of the 2nd
Amendment, that part which seems to make you extremely uncomfortable. You should
seek professional help with that mental problem.
Remember, your mental problems are YOURS, not other people's. It's not nice to
go around trying to push them off on other people.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:06:38 -0800, The Independent of Clackamas County
wrote:

(snip)
The only reason Clif wants to ban fire arms is some day he is going to
mouth off to the wrong person and he will get a second mouth in the
middle of his fore head.

Extremely doubtful. I've seen plenty of Cliffie's before. They're a dime a
dozen. They lack the intestinal fortitude to actually mouth off face-to-face to
anybody. Sitting at the keyboard is their substitute, in their little Walter
Mitty lives of frustration.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:31:37 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

The Constitution itself has no enforcement
mechanism. It's just a piece of paper -- ignored whenever
the politicians and/or the majority wish to ignore it.

Reminds you of the neocons & their puppets does it?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:32:16 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a): "The militia of the United States

And are those the same State's Rights to which the 2nd
applies about militias?
I think that the wording just confused you.

Which is #1? The 2nd & the US Constitution or
Title 10 U.S.C.?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:38:57 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:13:57 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:33:33 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

And another astute policital observer explains the reasons he supports
20-round magazines...

Nope. Another astue person explains one reason he opposes caving in to
irrational demands from neurotic people.

Those are the gunnutz, right? That so badly need to go blasting
away at anything that moves (and much that does not)?

An unarmed opponent ...... want to try for 1 out of 12?

If you can't recognize logic how could you expect to count logical arguments?

20 round magazines are "logical arguments" in your view?
LOL ...... Can you scramble eggs with the shockwaves &
noise? What have you scrambled so far? How many synapses
(counted in cubic inches)?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:41:29 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:34:49 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Based on YOUR declaration that it's so? Sorry, I don't recognize your authority.

Who has the most & biggest guns? That's "authority", right?

That's ONE form of authority. That's a stronger authority than some idiot on the
internet making a proclamation and expecting people to respect it. :/

AFAIK Most of us can see that. But keep it up anyway; it's pretty
funny at times.

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second amendment
plainly states it.

States what??

If you don't know what the 2nd Amendment states you shouldn't even be here. :/

Where did you come from? Can you get back there from here?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:13:59 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)

It's YOUR "imagined need" VBG.

And your "imagined" standard" of a need.
(snip)
So no ammendment is or was needed?

Another red herring? You beginning to feel desperate again?

BTW, You have no such "right".

I assume that they took your license long ago but that between
your stays in jail you still drive. Should you be allowed guns too?

Never been arrested.

Why do I doubt this?

Because you're stupid? If you don't know why you do something, I sure can't
figure it out for you. The workings of inferior minds are not worth my time to
figure out. :/

I see no reason I should be "allowed" guns,

Nor do I.

Too bad you're not in any position to allow anybody guns or anything, then.

since I'm not a subject.

Nor a writer.

Somebody's writing this.
..

I'm an American citizen, and we are not "allowed" guns. We have rights
which include the right to keep and bear arms. You really should have paid
attention in Civics class. :/

Shock *I* passed.

So you passed. I said you should have paid attention. An entirely different
thing. If you were smarter, maybe you'd know that.

Did you? Probably not. Too liberal a thing,
education?

I'm probably more liberal than you are on some subjects, and obviously more
educated on several more.

Can you name many groups that are not allowed near guns?

Relevance?

I can.

Relevance?

What rights are you spewing about? You seem very confused. Got
Nukes?

Red herring time again? You reek of desperation again.

Of course, that would be ASSuming YOUR "logic" was
really valid and not just a pretense to further your real agenda.

Teaching wingers to think before flapping the lips?

Before you can teach anything you have to know something.

It might help if you went back to seventh grade, right?

Reading your posts almost makes me feel like I'm back there.
(snip repetitive drivel)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:45:45 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Yes, when the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states something, there's no need to
interpret it, is there.

State's rights issue.
They can make you march with sticks.
Can you be trusted to do it right?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:48:04 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:06:38 -0800, The Independent of Clackamas County
wrote:

(snip)
The only reason Clif wants to ban fire arms is some day he is going to
mouth off to the wrong person and he will get a second mouth in the
middle of his fore head.

Extremely doubtful. I've seen plenty of Cliffie's before. They're a dime a
dozen. They lack the intestinal fortitude to actually mouth off face-to-face to
anybody. Sitting at the keyboard is their substitute, in their little Walter
Mitty lives of frustration.

Here's another one not to be trusted with rocks ....... or other
similar advanced technology beyond their comprehension.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:49:48 GMT, Clark Magnuson
wrote:



Cliff wrote:



On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:47:11 GMT, Clark Magnuson
wrote:





Johan wrote:





Where does one draw the
line? Where does one say: "This far and not a millimeter farther?

Too late: the line was crossed in 1934.







I agree with you Johan, the line was drawn in 1791 with the words, "in
no way infringe".
The bill of rights and constitution are just pieces of paper that cannot
protect us. WE need to protect those rights, and those that passively
condoned the 1934 NFA committed a grave error.
It was like passively condoning your wife sleeping at her boyfriend's
house. Next she sleeps with him in your house [1968 GCA], and next she
wants you to move out [1994 AWB].
The moral is, "Don't tolerate the transgressions."




What are you going to do? Shoot?



How did the voters respond to the 1994 AWB?
How did McVeigh respond to the 1994 AWB?
With a building gone and the democrat majority gone, would you have
liked a bigger response?



What are you going to do? Shoot?



How did the voters respond to the 1994 AWB?
How did McVeigh respond to the 1994 AWB?
With a building gone and the democrat majority gone, would you have
liked a bigger response?

The laws of 1934, 1968, and 1994 were transgressions.
The question should be what to do about it.
Or are you into the metaphor of the cheating wife?

--
Be careful what you pray for, it can happen.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:20:32 GMT, Johan wrote:

"If nobody can get guns, then there won't be any gun crimes." Well, no
kidding! Welcome back to the age of biggest and strongest rules.

The guy with the most & biggest guns?
Or the best lies?
--
Cliff

Fact Sheet: The Unintended Consequences of Gun Control


A. Waiting periods threaten the safety of people in imminent danger
* Bonnie Elmasri -- She inquired about getting a gun to protect
herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was
told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately,
Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the
next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.1
* Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross -- She bought a gun (in a non-waiting
period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days
later.2 Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been
defenseless against the man who was stalking her.
* Los Angeles riots -- USA Today reported that many of the people
rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were "lifelong gun-control
advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need."
Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a
gun for self-defense.3
B. Trigger Locks can delay one's ability to use a firearm for
self-defense
* Trigger locks are dangerous and cumbersome for self-defense. The
Wall Street Journal noted how when Beretta tested a "Saf T Lok," it cause 18
of 27 rounds to "totally malfunction." And when Handgun Control's chief
attorney attempted to demonstrate the same trigger lock at an HCI-sponsored
event, he found, to his embarrassment, that he was unable to disengage the
lock.4
* A trigger lock can be very difficult to remove from a firearm in
an emergency. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening struggled for at least two
whole minutes to remove a trigger lock at a training session in March 2000.5
If it can take that long to remove such a lock -- when there's only the
pressure of being embarrassed in front of the cameras -- what will a trigger
lock mean for a homeowner who needs to use his or her self-defense gun
during an emergency, in the bedroom, in the dark?
* The Mafia favors trigger locks -- for their victims. Mafia
turncoat, Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, expressed his love for gun control in an
interview with Vanity Fair: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for
crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm
always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on,
and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."6
C. Real life examples of how "locking up one's safety" can result in
death
* Canada: Ian Dunbar of Green Lake, B.C. was four years old and home
from kindergarten in 1994. While playing in his back yard, a bear attacked
him. His mother jumped on the bear and hit him. A neighbor went to get a
rifle, but was unable to find the key. They finally snatched Ian away and
rushed him to the hospital, but he died in his mother's arms on the way.7
* United States: Every month, the American Rifleman magazine
publishes a column entitled the "Armed Citizen" -- a column which highlights
recent press stories from around the nation where private citizens have used
guns in self-defense. Virtually any self-defense story one reads out of the
"Armed Citizen" would NOT have occurred if a trigger-lock had been in place
on the firearm.
* Colorado: "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead." After being
repeatedly stabbed by three young men in his Colorado home, Chuck Harris
managed to grab the .44-Magnum pistol he kept in a desk drawer. Thankfully,
Harris didn't have to remember a combination or fiddle with a trigger
lock -- he just pointed the gun and fired.
That quick thinking saved his life, and has caused Harris to later
reflect upon what was, perhaps, the obvious. "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd
be dead," he said. "If my pistol had been in a gun safe, I'd be dead. If the
bullets were stored separate, I'd be dead. They were going to kill me."8
D. California: A Case Study in Contrasts
* Merced. On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce
attacked a houseful of kids. Armed with a pitchfork -- and without a stitch
of clothing on his body -- Bruce proceeded to stab the children. Two of them
died.
The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was quite
proficient with firearms. She had been trained by her father and knew how to
use them. There was just one problem: the guns were locked up in compliance
with California state law. Unable to use the firearms, Jessica was forced to
flee the house to get help. Mr. Bruce's murderous rampage was finally cut
short when officers -- carrying guns -- arrived on the scene.9
* San Francisco. Contrast the Carpenter's tragic situation to that
of A.D. Parker. In February 2000, he was awakened by strange noises outside
his bedroom in the middle of the night. The 83-year-old Parker grabbed a
handgun he had not even used in several decades, went to his bedroom door,
and found himself face-to-face with a thug holding a crowbar.
Thankfully, because Mr. Parker had not obeyed California law, he
didn't have to fiddle with a trigger lock, remember a combination, or look
for a key in the dark room. He simply pointed the gun and pulled the
trigger -- which is why he survived the attack.10


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Congressional Record (May 8, 1991), at H 2859, H 2862.
2 Wall Street Journal (March 3, 1994) at A10.
3 Jonathan T. Lovitt, "Survival for the armed," USA Today (May 4,
1992).
4 "A Simple Invention Points Up Complexity of Gun-Control Suits, The
Wall Street Journal, April 23, 1999.
5 Gerald Mizejewski, "Device wins police praise but fails to move
skeptics," The Washington Times (March 23, 2000).
6 Interview with Sammy Gravano in Howard Blum, "The Reluctant Don,"
Vanity Fair (September 1999), p. 165.
7 The Gun Owners, April 16, 1999, p. 5.
8 Ellen Miller, "Man faces suspects accused of attacking him after
getting ride," Rocky Mountain News (March 14, 2001).
9 Kimi Yoshino, "Gun advocates say fear of liability keeps parents
from teaching survival skills," The Fresno Bee (August 26, 2000).
10 William Rasberry, "Ask A.D. Parker about gun control," The Denver
Post (March 20, 2000).

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:32:16 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a): "The militia of the United States

And are those the same State's Rights to which the 2nd
applies about militias?
I think that the wording just confused you.

Which is #1? The 2nd & the US Constitution or
Title 10 U.S.C.?
--
Cliff

%%%% The 2nd. I belong to my states unorganized militia. )

"David Moffitt" wrote in message
ink.net...

Having seen a number of your posts, and the quality of thinking that
goes
into them, I'm going to guess that you picked that up from some pro-gun
site
and that you haven't actually read the case. You may not know,
therefore,
what the conclusion was:

%%%% I have had it on disc since the ruling to use at appropriate times.

Uh-huh. You have a really interesting citation style, too. The only place
I've seen that in reference to the Emerson case, "EMERSON V. US 2001 WL
1230757 (5TH CIR)," is on blogs, and in sigs that pick it up without knowing
what they're picking it up from. g


Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the
indictment on Second Amendment grounds."

In other words, the operation was successful, but the patient died. g

%%%% Just like in the Miller case. He also had a second ammendment right
but
it did not apply in the case being heard.

Oh, there's a big difference. Miller asserted (in dicta, again) that the
right depended upon a militia use for the particular firearms. In Emerson,
the court said it did not.

The fact
that the 84 pages of dicta contained in Section V are
interesting, scholarly, and well written does not change the
fact that they are dicta and amount to at best an advisory
treatise on this long-running debate."

%%%% Golly Gee. One judge didn't join the decision. Now how often does
that
happen?

You apparently have not read the case. From the court's opinion:

"We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of
individuals...However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as
applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second
amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all
Second Amendment rights."

In other words, the court decided that there is an individual right, and
then said that it doesn't apply to this case because the law in question
doesn't infringe Emerson's rights, and wouldn't, under principles of US law.
In another part of the decision it spoke of the overriding case for state's
compelling interest.

That's the very definition of obiter dicta. The US Attorney's office pointed
out the same thing in its petition to deny cert. in the Emerson case. This
is a slam-dunk.

snip

It's one more frustration in the attempt to get binding and precedential
rulings on the 2nd Amendment.

%%%% The Supremes do not want to touch it with a sterlized crowbar.

There's no way to know if that's true or not. When you look at the cases
involving the 2nd in which the Court has denied certiorari, they all look
like baloney -- including Emerson. What is it the Court would be trying if
it re-heard Emerson? The Court of Appeals already decided he has an
individual right, but then, on unimpeachable grounds, it held for the
government. There's nothing left for the Supreme Court to try in that case.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snips)

No need for historical references? Then you're in deep water. If you
divorce
the militia history and references from the 2nd, you're left with no
restrictions on the states to outlaw any guns they want, any time they
want,
for any reason they want. Without the militia requirements upon the
states,
imposed by the Constitution by way of the 2nd, the feds have no authority
to
tell the states what to do about private ownership of guns. They'd have a
completely free hand.

Unlike some amendments, the 2nd isn't aimed at any
particular level or branch of government, therefore it
applies to all levels and branches of government equally,
including the states. Unfortunately, that obvious fact
doesn't stop them.

Court precedent disagrees with you, Robert. Any federal authority over the
states regarding the 2nd has been argued on the basis of the requirement of
the states to call up their militia on the demand of the federal government.
Even at that, the arguments have lost. States' rights over guns are
presently considered "good law," which means that the precedent and other
rulings supports the right of the states.

Think for a minute about what you're implying, if you think that the 2nd
overrides the states. You're saying that the states demanded an amendment to
the Constitution that would limit their own legislative powers. Hello?...

What they demanded was that the FEDERAL government make a written promise
not to restrict the rights of their citizens to own firearms.

And so long as gun ban supporters (you?)

Don't be insulting. I've put more effort into fighting gun bans that almost
every pro-gunner I've met. Most of you guys are just talk.

have the majority and the power, and want it that way, it
will be. The Constitution itself has no enforcement
mechanism. It's just a piece of paper -- ignored whenever
the politicians and/or the majority wish to ignore it.

The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than most
people think it is. There are many conflicts and events that the
Constitution didn't anticipate.

Ed Huntress

"David Moffitt" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

You're going to get in over your head on this one, Watcher, if you keep
it
up. In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been
superseded, both in fact and under law. The 2nd is at least partially
obsolete and non-functional.

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to
defend
your case of "people's" rights, you're going to find yourself right back
in
the lap of the militia. Look at the references in the Emerson case, for
example. They don't deny an individual RKBA, but the overwhelming weight
of
the historical support comes from the need for the *common defense*,
with
almost nothing that can be tied to the 2nd in relation to *personal
defense*. The versions of the 2nd that were proposed by a few states,
which
included other reasons than the militia phrase, were rejected in the
writing
of the actual amendment.

Furthermore, you have to look at the legal status of the Bill of Rights
at
the time it was written. It was a set of prohibitions on the FEDERAL
government -- promises by the federal government to the states that they
wouldn't usurp their authority or the rights that the STATES presumed
for
their citizens, to satisfy the demands made by several states, in order
for
them to ratify the Constitution. Nowhere in the history of the
Constitution,
nor in Supreme Court rulings since then, has the 2nd been
"incorporated."
In
other words, states' rights still apply to the 2nd, as long as the
states
don't construe to deny the federal government its authority to call up
state
militias for federal service.

If you think it's simple, it isn't. It never was. The route by which the
RKBA was reached by the 5th Circuit Court was a back-door one, by way of
the
history supporting an unorganized militia for the common defense. If the
S.C. finds in favor of an RKBA, if it ever hears such a case, it will be
by
the same route. The fact that the unorganized militia is functional only
in
theory might complicate a S.C. ruling, but not necessarily so.
Originalist
Justices probably would find about the same way the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals found in Emerson.

But not by analyzing the grammar of the 2nd. It's a cockeyed sentence,
anyway; a nominative-absolute construction, with only one clause, and a
preamble phrase of questionable relation to the clause. The intent of
the
2nd isn't going to be found in a dictionary or a grammar book. The 5th
Circuit Court's analysis in the Emerson case is as close as anyone is
going
to get to it.

Ed Huntress

Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a): "The militia of the United States
consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except
as provided in section 313 of title 32 [National Guard age
limitations], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard." Section 311(b: "The classes of the militia are (1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the
members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or
the Naval Militia."

Yeah, that's right. And what in the hell has that to do with anything I said
above?

Are you actually reading these posts, Dave, or are you just sort of tossing
things into the stew at random?


%%%% I'm a member of the unorganized militia in my state.

Good for you. Close-order drill will be held at 6:00 AM. Be there. g

Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:37:32 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Just because it's a right.

Given to you by whom exactly why?

Inalienable. Bestowed by "Nature's God" as put forth in the
Declaration
of
Independence. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only enumerate
some
of our rights to stress their importance. They do not enumerate them.

Let me say that a little better...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights call out certain important rights.
They
do not exactly enumerate them. There are more than appear in these two
documents.

I apologize for typing a little quicker than I ought.

No problem.

But "Only to stress their importance" implies that the "Bill of
Rights" is redundant.

There is a redundancy. In the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold
these truths to be self-evident" and goes on to say that among these truths
are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". This suggests that there
are more than just these and that they exist whether or not they are
enumerated in the Declaration or any other document.

Redundancy isn't a bad thing you know. The more places that refer to our
freedoms the better. In that sense, I like the redundancy.

The current administration would no doubt agree with you.

IF a "right"is not so spelled out (like the right of the States
to regulate who may have guns and how that are to be used)
do you have any such "rights"?
Why would some need to be enumerated but not others?

NONE need be enumerated. They pre-exist the DC and BOR. Furthermore,
whenever they are sufficiently infringed, it is the right of the people to
abolish the government curtailing the rights and establish another which
suits them better.

I know what they are. Don't you?

Now YOU have a problem...

Joe

NOW you have a problem ...... GGG
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:51:57 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:29:05 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Just Because is a good enough reason and sufficient need, Cliffie.

Nope.

Yes.

Just because it's a right.

Given to you by whom exactly why?

Inalienable. Bestowed by "Nature's God" as put forth in the Declaration
of
Independence. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only enumerate
some
of our rights to stress their importance. They do not enumerate them.

You are either circular or very confused. Which?

Got any foorp of "nature's god"?

Don't need "foorp".

Neither did the Framers. They just postulated that their rights were
inherent in being human.

What came before the US Constitution, as ammended?
Before it was ammended so much?

The Framers knew what rights they were claiming. So do you.

Is it the holy word?

I wouldn't be so foolish as to plead "Holy Word" to you. You are probably a
non-believer. Makes no anyhow...

And the 2nd Ammendment exists and doesn't need
arguments to prove its existence.

Immaterial.
Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

Bite me, Cliffie.

Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

As for the interpretation, I'm sure
there's no convincing you that it's an individual right - Right?
Well,
be
sure that there are plenty of us out here who are already convinced of
that
fact.

Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

You're too kind Cliffie. Bite me.

Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

And, no... I'm not some redneck in flyover country. I live in
California,
in the SF Bay Area - Heart of the Left Coast.

Gunner's always complaining about the schools there.

The schools here ARE bad. Unfortunately. You might remember me from
some
time ago.

Where & when?

A little while ago when we interacted and you attempted to insult my
intelligence. I think another poster and I went off-topic and talked about
life in New Jersey, particularly Hunterdon County for a bit. You may not
have been interested.

I grew up in Philadelphia and North Central Jersey. Only one
year of high school in CA. From there, college in CA and the colleges
are
decent.

Gummer's against them. Liberal spit education & all that.
Trade school?

Yeah, yeah... you will contend that redneck is a state of mind. If
so,
I'm
proud to be in that state of mind.

So is poor "Shu" no doubt.
It's absolutely amazing how many brag that they cannot think.

Shu?

You might like her. Run a search of the recent (one year tops)
archives of AMC.

I think fine Cliffie. Don't brag so much though.

BTW, bite me.

Have you met Lady Chatterly yet?

You sound a little like a bot too above, Cliffie.

Joe

You need to work on a proper sig.

Screw sigs. I have a name. Now you have it too.

Joe

--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:00:44 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Why would they have needed an ammendment?

To make it extremely clear. Just in case some jerks in the future decide
that they would like to curtail gun ownership and free use.

How many other
"wants" do you have? Do they all need ammendments too, just
to make YOU happy? So that you can get your way?

I'll settle for the ones in the Constitution and in common law.

BTW, That's NOT what the 2nd says. Back to Jr. High with
you; you just failed government class.

Firstly Cliffie... Bite me! I didn't fail. You are a moron.

Second, I *DO* know what the Amendment says and have its correct
interpretation. It describes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Rather than just saying you disagree, you have to insult me. You're a
sniveling little ****. Come talk to me that way to my face you jerk!
Brave
on Usenet, huh?

I'd wager many in the prisons and nut houses would just love
a few of your noisemakers.
Why don't you take them a few Nukes?

Cliffie... I don't need firearms or nukes to handle you. You don't know
who you are talking to. I am more than capable of dealing with you hand to
hand. The noise will be minimal. You won't hear much of it.

Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining. You really
need some new schtick. You know, if you were more convincing in your
arguments you wouldn't feel so inadequate that you need to take personal
pokes at people.

Joe

--
Cliff

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

(snip)
It's not my authority, Watcher.

Well, at least you got that part right.

It's well documented in the law.

OK, which law.

The laws creating the National Guard and the standing army. The last time an
armed unit was called up from the "unorganized militia," if I recall
correctly, was in 1865.

The "unorganized militia" is now a legal subterfuge to finesse the Selective
Service. They aren't expected to bring their own guns anymore. g



On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to
defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second
amendment
plainly states it.

No need for historical references?

Yes, when the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states something, there's no need to
interpret it, is there. The only reason someone would have to want to
interpret
is would be maybe because they wouldn't want to accept what was plainly
stated
there.

Or they may know something that you haven't considered. For example, the
federal government had no authority under the 2nd (and they still don't,
until and unless the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th Amendment) to tell
the states how to handle the issue of gun control.

If you don't know that, you're living a fantasy. It wasn't until the
Reconstruction Amendments were enacted, after the Civil War, that the feds
presumed to go over the heads of the states on most issues involved in the
Bill of Rights. And they still haven't done so regarding the 2nd.

Then you're in deep water. If you divorce
the militia history and references from the 2nd, you're left with no
restrictions on the states to outlaw any guns they want, any time they
want,
for any reason they want. Without the militia requirements upon the
states,
imposed by the Constitution by way of the 2nd, the feds have no authority
to
tell the states what to do about private ownership of guns. They'd have a
completely free hand.

Yeah, if they do like you, and ignore the entire second half of the 2nd
Amendment, that part which seems to make you extremely uncomfortable.

It doesn't make me the least bit uncomfortable. I've spend over 30 years
studying the Constitution and Constitutional law, after having a pretty fair
academic background in it in college. None of it makes me uncomfortable. I
find it very interesting.

You should
seek professional help with that mental problem.

Thank you, Dr. Freud. And you ought to go back to school and find out what
the hell you're talking about. You apparently missed a lot of it the first
time around.

Remember, your mental problems are YOURS, not other people's. It's not
nice to
go around trying to push them off on other people.

So, what's your excuse?

--
Dr. Sigmoid Fleet
Psychoproctologist to the Stars

Maybe holding three tickets in the pocket - Dad, wife and daughter. Dad is the hunter. :-)

Martin

David R. Birch wrote:

Russ wrote:


I hate to break it to you darling, but having a twenty round mag in
the woods while hunting is already illegal. Of course, that's only in
the six or so states I have actually hunted. Wisconsin may be
different but my bet is not.

He wasen't legally allowed to carry it into the woods and murder is
already illegal.


Wisconsin does not have a limitation on the capacity of magazines or
number of rounds in the gun for gun deer hunting.

David

WHERE IS THE NEED OF A HUNTER TO HAVE MORE THAN FOUR ROUNDS IN HIS
WEAPON?

Possible answers:
A. Lousy shot
B. Poacher
C. Murder is his objective.
D. Out of stater that doesn't care if he's breaking laws or not.
E. All of the above.

The only thing you have to fear while hunting now is other hunters.



Russ


Many, if not most, deer hunters don't fire their weapons until just
before deer season. Why do you allow as many as four rounds in the gun?
Every hunter should be able to get one shot kill heart shots out to 400
yards every time. Sure.

I don't have as much experience poaching as you do, but I've read that
they use the same type of weapon as anyone else.

As far as C & D, I recommend that you no longer hunt with these people.

Go reread the 2nd Amendment until you realize how foolish your message is.

David


--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

When I went to high school, It was NEDA - National Education Defense Act.
The act paid for my books and teacher - German, and the range, two instructors and rifle and ammo.
Yes, legal rifle at school at the range. Teaching targets and other training...

The Second Amendment People is who come to the aid of the country when in need.
Marksman are already made, and a lot of pre-training as well. Without 'we the people'
we would have to wait months or just send body bags with the green troops as they
would have to learn on-the-fly.

Congress, Army and other forces support this and have been for many many years.

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)

Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.


You're going to get in over your head on this one, Watcher, if you keep it
up. In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been
superseded, both in fact and under law. The 2nd is at least partially
obsolete and non-functional.

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights, you're going to find yourself right back in
the lap of the militia. Look at the references in the Emerson case, for
example. They don't deny an individual RKBA, but the overwhelming weight of
the historical support comes from the need for the *common defense*, with
almost nothing that can be tied to the 2nd in relation to *personal
defense*. The versions of the 2nd that were proposed by a few states, which
included other reasons than the militia phrase, were rejected in the writing
of the actual amendment.

Furthermore, you have to look at the legal status of the Bill of Rights at
the time it was written. It was a set of prohibitions on the FEDERAL
government -- promises by the federal government to the states that they
wouldn't usurp their authority or the rights that the STATES presumed for
their citizens, to satisfy the demands made by several states, in order for
them to ratify the Constitution. Nowhere in the history of the Constitution,
nor in Supreme Court rulings since then, has the 2nd been "incorporated." In
other words, states' rights still apply to the 2nd, as long as the states
don't construe to deny the federal government its authority to call up state
militias for federal service.

If you think it's simple, it isn't. It never was. The route by which the
RKBA was reached by the 5th Circuit Court was a back-door one, by way of the
history supporting an unorganized militia for the common defense. If the
S.C. finds in favor of an RKBA, if it ever hears such a case, it will be by
the same route. The fact that the unorganized militia is functional only in
theory might complicate a S.C. ruling, but not necessarily so. Originalist
Justices probably would find about the same way the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals found in Emerson.

But not by analyzing the grammar of the 2nd. It's a cockeyed sentence,
anyway; a nominative-absolute construction, with only one clause, and a
preamble phrase of questionable relation to the clause. The intent of the
2nd isn't going to be found in a dictionary or a grammar book. The 5th
Circuit Court's analysis in the Emerson case is as close as anyone is going
to get to it.

Ed Huntress




--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:42:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

(snip)
It's not my authority, Watcher.

Well, at least you got that part right.

It's well documented in the law.

OK, which law.

The laws creating the National Guard and the standing army. The last time an
armed unit was called up from the "unorganized militia," if I recall
correctly, was in 1865.

The National Guard was formed in 1903.
Some 116 years after the signing of the Constitution...and the
approval of the 2nd Amendment. So the law regarding the National
Guard, does not supersede the 2nd. No law can supercede a
Constitutional Right. Only another Amendment can do that.

Judicial "interpretation" or not. If it were so..then any state
could allow the holding of slaves again, or the banning of political
speech.


As to the Founders view of the militia....

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the
hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE
POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM
SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled
and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not
ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man
against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are
the birth-right of an American."

-Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb. 1788"


http://home.att.net/~superspy/militia.htm

While a opinion piece..is rather well done, historically correct and
addresses all sides of the matter.

The "unorganized militia" is now a legal subterfuge to finesse the Selective
Service. They aren't expected to bring their own guns anymore. g

?????????



On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to
defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second
amendment
plainly states it.

No need for historical references?

Yes, when the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states something, there's no need to
interpret it, is there. The only reason someone would have to want to
interpret
is would be maybe because they wouldn't want to accept what was plainly
stated
there.

Or they may know something that you haven't considered. For example, the
federal government had no authority under the 2nd (and they still don't,
until and unless the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th Amendment) to tell
the states how to handle the issue of gun control.

Incorrect. Its no more subject to states rights than are any of the
Bill of Rights ammendments, including the 1st.

If you don't know that, you're living a fantasy. It wasn't until the
Reconstruction Amendments were enacted, after the Civil War, that the feds
presumed to go over the heads of the states on most issues involved in the
Bill of Rights. And they still haven't done so regarding the 2nd.

Which is par for the course. The Civil War was fought over States
Rights, and the damned Federalists won. Which only means they inforced
their views, not the Constitution.

A clear case of Might Makes Right, even though its contrary to the
Founders and framers of the Constitution.

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
. com...
When I went to high school, It was NEDA - National Education Defense Act.
The act paid for my books and teacher - German, and the range, two
instructors and rifle and ammo.
Yes, legal rifle at school at the range. Teaching targets and other
training...

Well, old timer, when I was a freshman in high school (Pennsylvania), during
deer season, I brought my Savage 99 to school and kept it in the shop-class
lockers, along with about 50 other kids who did the same thing. And we had a
rifle team. The first day of deer season was a school holiday. If it wasn't,
nobody would have showed up, anyway, because they were all out in the woods.

And I was a DCM range officer as an adult, and shot M1 carbines in Junior
DCM from the age of 13. I was a certified rifle instructor for around 10
years. 'Got my Marksmanship Merit Badge at the age of 12. So I get the
picture.


The Second Amendment People is who come to the aid of the country when in
need.
Marksman are already made, and a lot of pre-training as well. Without 'we
the people'
we would have to wait months or just send body bags with the green troops
as they
would have to learn on-the-fly.

Tell that to the Army. They say the recruits can't shoot for ****. It's been
that way for over 100 years. That's why the DCM program was started in the
first place, over a century ago, after the Army realized the recruits for
the Spanish-American War couldn't shoot for ****, either. It hasn't helped
much, but it did help burn up a lot of old ammo.


Congress, Army and other forces support this and have been for many many
years.

Yeah, I know. I shot about a bazillion rounds of surplus ammo through a
Garand.

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:42:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

(snip)
It's not my authority, Watcher.

Well, at least you got that part right.

It's well documented in the law.

OK, which law.

The laws creating the National Guard and the standing army. The last time
an
armed unit was called up from the "unorganized militia," if I recall
correctly, was in 1865.

The National Guard was formed in 1903.
Some 116 years after the signing of the Constitution...and the
approval of the 2nd Amendment. So the law regarding the National
Guard, does not supersede the 2nd. No law can supercede a
Constitutional Right. Only another Amendment can do that.

Oh, cripes, Gunner. You know better than that.

What I said was that some of the 2nd Amendment has been superceded under law
and in fact. You're talking about rights. I was talking about the *facts* of
what happens today, and the laws regarding militia.

The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed in 1901. (After Teddy Roosevelt said,
of the old law and of the way the militia actually functioned, "Our militia
law is obsolete and worthless.") It was replaced by the Dick Act of 1903.

As of 1916, the state militia (plural) are now the National Guard, and the
dual state-federal control is now fully explicit (amended in 1920). When
there's an insurrection or a need for military force to enforce the laws of
the US, the states' governors call up the National Guard (Kent State;
Newark; Detroit; etc.). They don't assemble a unit of the unorganized
militia. When the *federal* government demands that a state call up its
militia to put down an insurrection (Little Rock), it's the National Guard,
not the unorganized militia, that's called up.

Could the states or the feds call up the unorganized militia? Yes, in
theory. But the laws today specifically require that they call up the
*organized militia* (the National Guard, when it's not operating under
federal jurisdiction, in time of war or on demand of the President). They
*conscript* from the unorganized militia, which is now nothing but a legal
subterfuge to allow conscription. The "unorganized militiaman" is drafted
into the Army, in fact, not into a militia. He isn't expected to bring his
own gun, or even to have one. "Able bodied men" are no longer required to be
armed at their own expense, and with their own personal arms, as they
legally, if not actually, were required to do under the Militia Act of 1792.
That act is now defunct, replaced by the Dick Act and then the acts of 1916
and 1920, etc.


Judicial "interpretation" or not. If it were so..then any state
could allow the holding of slaves again, or the banning of political
speech.

I have no freaking idea what you're talking about. I'll bet you don't,
either.



As to the Founders view of the militia....

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the
hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE
POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM
SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled
and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not
ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man
against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are
the birth-right of an American."

-Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb. 1788"

Nice magazine article! Was that an op-ed?


Or they may know something that you haven't considered. For example, the
federal government had no authority under the 2nd (and they still don't,
until and unless the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th Amendment) to
tell
the states how to handle the issue of gun control.

Incorrect. Its no more subject to states rights than are any of the
Bill of Rights ammendments, including the 1st.

Ah, Gunner, most of them were subject to states' rights until the
Reconstruction Amendments. Some of them still are, including the 2nd.


If you don't know that, you're living a fantasy. It wasn't until the
Reconstruction Amendments were enacted, after the Civil War, that the
feds
presumed to go over the heads of the states on most issues involved in
the
Bill of Rights. And they still haven't done so regarding the 2nd.

Which is par for the course. The Civil War was fought over States
Rights, and the damned Federalists won. Which only means they inforced
their views, not the Constitution.

A clear case of Might Makes Right, even though its contrary to the
Founders and framers of the Constitution.

It appears you don't know what the framers intended with the Bill of Rights.

Tell us, Mr. Historian, why is it that the states would demand a Bill of
Rights, only to find that it was a set of restrictions on what the STATES
could legislate? Do you think the states were screaming for the federal
government to limit their power?

Or have you re-thought that question, and screwed your head back on tight?
g

Ed Huntress

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


It appears you don't know what the framers intended with the Bill of Rights.

Tell us, Mr. Historian, why is it that the states would demand a Bill of
Rights, only to find that it was a set of restrictions on what the STATES
could legislate? Do you think the states were screaming for the federal
government to limit their power?

Actually, the Bill of Rights was demanded by Individuals (Mason and
his buds,) not the States. The States had their own Constitutions and
Bills of Rights. Keep in mind that this was to be a Union of
Sovereign political bodies called States, not a amalgamation with no
unique individual political boundaries or differences.

"Once independence had been declared, in 1776, the American states
turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state
bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal
architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which
wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections
against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other
states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason's
declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France's
Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason
remarked that he "wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of
Rights." Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to
prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the
motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they
simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new
federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the
Framers also were skeptical of the utility of what James Madison
called "parchment barriers" against majorities; they looked, for
protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers
and checks and balances.

Opponents of ratification quickly seized upon the absence of a bill of
rights, and Federalists, especially Madison, soon realized that they
must offer to add amendments to the Constitution after its
ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution's
supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states
as New York and Virginia.

In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise.
Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state
ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals
of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had
more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of
others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble
the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and
Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of
proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments—the Bill of Rights—had
been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states
were needed; Virginia's ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the
Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were
ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and
with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by
the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in
Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that
understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting
his claim on the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property
not be taken for public use "without just compensation." Marshall
ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended "solely as a limitation on
the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is
not applicable to the legislation of the states."

snip

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes