Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
"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 In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been superseded, both in fact and under law.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 On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend your case of "people's" rights, No need to use historical references to defend any case.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 No need for historical references?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 |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
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. :/ |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ) |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
If Guns Were Outlawed, Only Bad Dogs Would Have Guns | Metalworking | |||
HVLP spray guns | Metalworking | |||
Nice write up about LEDs | Metalworking | |||
ot- Gun Laws in Australia | Metalworking |