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 |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... 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. Not true. The legislatures of five states made requests or demands for a Bill of Rights: Massachusetts; South Carolina; New Hampshire; Virginia; and New York. Rhode Island wouldn't even conditionally ratify until after the Bill of Rights was submitted. We're talking about entire state legislatures here, not just a few individuals. The States had their own Constitutions and Bills of Rights. That's quite true. And the states were not about to have the federal government tell them what could or could not be included. 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. I don't know why you're bringing this stuff up, Gunner, because it supports the opposite of the point you were trying to make: that the federal Bill of Rights somehow applied over the heads of the states. The states wouldn't have stood for it. In fact, your own quote below confirms the point, the OPPOSITE of what you were claiming: 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 Do you remember what it was you were arguing, in other words, or did you get confused along the way? What you've just quoted is exactly what I said, that the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government, not on that of the states. Thus, in regard to the 2nd Amendment, the states could do what they want. That's the status of the law today. Ed Huntress |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:50:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: What you've just quoted is exactly what I said, that the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government, not on that of the states. Thus, in regard to the 2nd Amendment, the states could do what they want. That's the status of the law today. Ed Huntress If thats true, than any state can simply nullify, within its own borders, the GCA 1934, 68 and so forth? Then any state can form a mandated State Religion, legalize slavery and ban political speech. Correct? 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 |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
"David Moffitt" wrote in message link.net...
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. Clearly you have other problems too, right? As Title 10 is no doubt much more recent than the 2nd ammendment you cannot use it as your claimed basis for any of the meaning of the 2nd ammendment. Consider this the daily free logic clue but don't tell Gunner G. HTH -- Cliff |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:00:39 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote: "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 blog stolen from www.gunowners.org/ and immaterial. -- Cliff |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:19:04 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote: "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 IF you don't know what they are you don't know if you have them. Or not. Enjoy the problem. -- Cliff |
#326
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:30:01 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote: "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. Some folks can pull rabbits out of hats too. You need better reasoning than this circular stuff to get anywhere. 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. Then we need no lawyers? And said "rights" never become altered and are all that there are or can be? Circular ..... 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... T'was your phrase. 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. Probably not. BTW, bite me. Have you met Lady Chatterly yet? You sound a little like a bot too above, Cliffie. She's done a better job than some of the wingesr & gunnutz G. Joe You need to work on a proper sig. Screw sigs. I have a name. Now you have it too. Joe You need to work on a proper sig. HTH -- Cliff |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:35:42 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote: "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. You seem unarmed. Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining. So you are wrong again? You really need some new schtick. Probably be a hot seller ..... 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. "Bite me"? Joe You need a proper sig. -- Cliff |
#328
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:39:21 GMT, Gunner
wrote: As to the Founders view of the militia.... "The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania The "minority of Pennsylvania" IS the "Founders view of the militia"? LOL .... good one, Gunner. -- Cliff |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:26:20 GMT, Gunner
wrote: 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. You get even more confused. What's required to be a State, beyond the initial 13? What has changed in those 13? -- Cliff |
#330
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:26:20 GMT, Gunner
wrote: that document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights Which might be what in your opine, Gunner? -- Cliff |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ed Huntress says...
The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than most people think it is. Well, certainly more complicated than the typical usenet-inhabiting 2nd amendment troll can figure out. "Eats, shoots, and leaves." g The level of misinformation that's become apparent in this thread is really astounding. They should make all the hunters pass an adult education american history course before they can tote guns in the woods. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Gunner says...
Then any state can form a mandated State Religion, legalize slavery and ban political speech. AArrgah. When was the last time you took an american history course? Hint, look up a teeny thing called the 14th amendment. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: "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. First, I apologize for responding harshly previously: You did not deserve it. Credit, too, the system of checks and balances that appears aimed directly at preventing a tyranny of the majority. Some areas are declared off-limits to federal government activity. Many state constitutions also enumerate rights. Such enumerations are variably honored, but that's their citizens' problems. OK. Well, then whence this apparent distrust of the general populace among so many Democrats and others left of GWB? (BTW, I'm a registered Democrat, FWIW) Wouldn't it be equally to their credit that owners of weapons with large-capacity magazines so rarely use them criminally? It appears to me that, if one can trust one's fellow citizens to that extent, why distrust them owning weapons with 20 or 200-round magazines? I don't own an "assault weapon," but I can see how militaria buffs or people who just think it's fun to discharge a lot of ammunition in a short time might want one. Murderers and other violent criminals can usually acquire or construct whatever kind of weapon they want anyway, up to and including truckloads of ANFO. The whole thing just reminds me of the old schoolteachers' tactic of punishing the whole class so as to be sure they got the guilty party. It was injustice then and it's not any more just for a government now. How the Hell did you get out of my killfile anyway? 'Dunno. Maybe your computer sprung a leak? Macs don't leak: They spew occasionally, but they don't leak. (Well, maybe the new water-cooled ones; Could be.) There's just something odd about a computer whose instructions include a warning about looking out for leaking liquids. I suppose now I have to go make it a global kill. There's an appropriate metaphor, all right. Good'un! OK, maybe I was a little hasty; maybe even a lot hasty. I apologize again. 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. I agree on the after the fact approach to restraint. Restrain the perpetrator a posteriori. A priori restraint is virtually impossible, not to mention being diametrically opposed to the concept of personal liberty. Freedom is dangerous and expensive, but I haven't found any system of restrictive government that is less so. But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise. With the "It bleeds, it leads" practices of many journalists, such incidents are reported far in excess of their actual importance. If such were occurring once a week, once a month, or even twice a year for several years running, it might be right to be concerned. At the rate it occurs now, broad-brush, punish everyone, legislation is just not warranted. They're reported so sensationally, IMO, precisely because they are so rare -- and horrific. Nutballs will always be with us. There's no preventing them procuring whatever weapon(s) they want for whatever purposes. If you can't trust your citizens with arms, you can't trust them with anything more important, a vote, for instance, or ideas. The phrase: "So this can never happen again" simply burns me up it's such transparent political pandering to the fearful. Not even the harshest police states can guarantee that. A representative democratic republic has no chance to prevent some occurrence of similar events. If you can stand reading a comment about no weapons signs in CCW states: The people who will obey the signs aren't the problem: The people who are the problem won't obey the signs. -- Me. It's one of those things that tests your principles. It's a question of whether you think the Constitution is a suicide pact. My principles are just fine. I expect the government to provide good, reasonable legislation to punish wrongdoers while maximizing my personal liberty unless and until I or another citizen commit an act that measurably harms another citizen. Beyond that, I expect it to leave me alone. One wag declared: "The government, in all its forms and sizes, should keep its nose to Hell out of my bedroom, my liquor cabinet, my medicine cabinet, and my gun rack." I generally agree, but might add wallet. (Like that's ever going to happen!) I, and no one else, can control others' fears or discomfiture. So long as one does no physical harm, what matters it how many firearms with how large magazine capacity he might possess? I know people who act deathly afraid of bows and arrows, simply because they _could_ be used to do harm from a distance. To be fair, those folks are emphatically anti-hunting too. "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. Gratuitous, apparently intentional, misrepresentation of my stance, a Red Herring. Mr. Huntress, I've read your posts for a long time on m.s. and r.c.m. That's just unworthy of you. C'mon! I do, however, have a problem with pure democracy, that tyranny of the majority thing I mentioned above. The Fourth Box is the very last resort to accomplish a regime change. Best, Johan |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the Jesus Christ, havew either of you read the document? It mentions thewm several times, always as being able to be called up by the state damn 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 |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:50:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: What you've just quoted is exactly what I said, that the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the power of the FEDERAL government, not on that of the states. Thus, in regard to the 2nd Amendment, the states could do what they want. That's the status of the law today. Ed Huntress If thats true, than any state can simply nullify, within its own borders, the GCA 1934, 68 and so forth? They certainly could bring a case on first principles. They'd have standing to do so. I don't recall the history of cases brought over the GCA, but, unless it's been decided on grounds that would shoot it down before it got started, the S.C. might hear such a case. The state probably would lose, IMO, because the Crick Act and the Commerce Clause take a lot of the wind out of their sails, but it would be interesting to see how such a case would go. Then any state can form a mandated State Religion, legalize slavery and ban political speech. You should know better. The 13th Amendment ended slavery, and it explicitly made the prohibition applicable to every person in the US. That was the beginning of the Reconstruction Amendments' overriding of states' rights. The states had it shoved down their throats -- or the southern states did, anyway. Regarding religion and speech, what you say was true until Gitlow v. New York, 1925. That's the case that incorporated the 1st under the 14th, and overturned state authority to regulate speech and religion. As it happens, some of the original states *did* establish religions, or rather they inherited religious establishment from colonial times and kept it going after the Constitution was ratified. The issue wasn't a big one until the Blaine Amendment. You should look that one up. Ed Huntress |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
yourname wrote: Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the Jesus Christ, havew either of you read the document? It mentions thewm several times, always as being able to be called up by the state damn You made me do it, this is all the time I have for this nonsense Article 1 sec 8 clause 15 and 16 article 2 section 2 clause 1 All mention militia in terms of the FEDERAL gov't paying for and controlling There is no such thing as a private militia Gunner, read the document you claim to revere. Jeezus Ed, expect better |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
"yourname" wrote in message
... Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the Jesus Christ, havew either of you read the document? It mentions thewm several times, always as being able to be called up by the state damn Sorry, Damn. We were talking about the 2nd Amendment and that's what I was thinking of. Ed Huntress |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than most people think it is. Well, certainly more complicated than the typical usenet-inhabiting 2nd amendment troll can figure out. "Eats, shoots, and leaves." g The level of misinformation that's become apparent in this thread is really astounding. They should make all the hunters pass an adult education american history course before they can tote guns in the woods. If they had only taught it right in high school, we'd have a lot less trouble here. BTW, my son is in his second year of AP (advanced placement) American History ("American Pageant"), and he's had to learn stuff I didn't hear about until I was in upperclass courses in college. The stuff they're teaching now is one hell of a lot more accurate, and more complete, than it was when we were in school. Gunner has good reason to bitch about public schools. Back when he was in school, they really sucked. g Ed Huntress |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
"Johan" wrote in message
... snip Johan, my ISP has been jerking around with its software for the NG server and I've lost a LOT of messages in this thread. I just lost yours once and had to recover it. In case I lose it again I just want to mention that I read it. I didn't find your last message offensive. But I have to go to work now. If I don't reply you'll know why. I must have lost 20 or more messages here and my comma isn't working on my keyboard...oh my gosh my brackets aren't working either so don't give me no crap about my punctuation or lack of it and I hope I remember to recover your message again so I can reply and so on...jesus life is tough without a comma...you don't know what you've got 'till its gone...I can't stop and it's wearing me out and I'll do a Dr. Strangelove if I use any more ellipses...hasta luego for now. Ed Huntress |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:35:42 GMT, "Joe Halbleib" wrote: "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. You seem unarmed. No, but I'll keep them locked up while you visit. Feeling brave? Your reference to prisons is stupid and not even entertaining. So you are wrong again? About what now, Cliffie? You really need some new schtick. Probably be a hot seller ..... Or not. 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. "Bite me"? You might recall the above reply in response to your insults and not your attempt at logical discourse. Joe You need a proper sig. What, like yours below? What I use is plenty. Joe -- Cliff |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff wrote:
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.? Believing Title 10 is most important will keep you out of prison. Believing Amendment #2 is most important will allow you to maintain your moral dignity while you serve your time in prison.. |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:01:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message (snips) 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. I know. The courts are wrong. :-) Unfortunately, they have the power to be wrong and still be in control. 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. I'm not being insulting, merely observant. For all your "opposition" to gun bans, I see nothing from you but support for the gun banners, their program, their court rulings, their right and power to ban guns. If it talks like a duck... (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:01:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message (snips) 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. I know. The courts are wrong. :-) Maybe you can run an online course for Supreme Court Justices. I'm sure they'll appreciate your insights. d8-) Unfortunately, they have the power to be wrong and still be in control. 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. I'm not being insulting, merely observant. For all your "opposition" to gun bans, I see nothing from you but support for the gun banners, their program, their court rulings, their right and power to ban guns. If it talks like a duck... What you "see" is someone who has studied the law and the history of it. What you *are* is one of those people who thinks he knows all about it but doesn't. So like many of them you're frustrated when you see all your old chestnuts roasted on the fire of Constitutional history and law. You're not the first. I've talked to hundreds. 'Want to test it? Ed Huntress |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: (snips) 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). The fly in that ointment is that the National Guard does not meet the Constitutional requirements for state militias. The minor fact that the act creating the National Guard is unconstitutional probably won't ever matter any more than it does now. (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: (snips) 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). The fly in that ointment is that the National Guard does not meet the Constitutional requirements for state militias. Really? Tell us about that one. Ed Huntress The minor fact that the act creating the National Guard is unconstitutional probably won't ever matter any more than it does now. Thank you Justice Sturgeon. If I ever get a keyboard with a comma again I'll be glad to discuss it with you. 8-) Ed Huntress |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:16:14 GMT in misc.survivalism : If thats true, than any state can simply nullify, within its own borders, the GCA 1934, 68 and so forth? Then any state can form a mandated State Religion, legalize slavery and ban political speech. Correct? Well, in theory, maybe. But I think in the current political climate ... who knows? After all, the Democrats are the ones who seem to feel comfortable with having unelected judges mandate religious expression or restrictions on political speech. As long as the judges are "progressive" and not trying to establish a right wing theocracy. tschus pyotr Gunner -- pyotr filipivich Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman. |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:46:06 GMT, yourname wrote:
Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the Jesus Christ, havew either of you read the document? It mentions thewm several times, always as being able to be called up by the state damn It also mentions that it may be called up by the Federal government, and by various local government officials. The Sheriffs for one, in practical application. Though that would be under the Posse Comitatus Act which is a slightly different ball of wax, drawing on the same pool. However...neither the Federal or State governments have called on the unorganized militia in quite some time. IRRC..the last time was in one of the Colorado mining strikes in the 1930s. Posse is fairly regularly used. Gunner 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 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 |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:06:53 GMT, yourname wrote:
You made me do it, this is all the time I have for this nonsense Article 1 sec 8 clause 15 and 16 article 2 section 2 clause 1 All mention militia in terms of the FEDERAL gov't paying for and controlling The Federal government only pays for and controls the militia when it calls it up. Period. Before a call up, its not in its perview to control or pay for it. You may be thinking of the Organized Militia, also named the Select Militia, which includes the National Guard, which is controlled by the Fed and State. Any NG member is a member of both the states NG, and the federal ready reserve. 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 |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:23:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote: It also mentions that it may be called up by the Federal government, and by various local government officials. The Sheriffs for one, in practical application. Though that would be under the Posse Comitatus Act which is a slightly different ball of wax, drawing on the same pool. Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of US armed forces as a "posse comitatus". Well, it used to.... It does much apply anymore. |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:42:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: (snip) It doesn't make me the least bit uncomfortable. Yeah, right. That's why you have no problem quoting the first part of the 2nd Amendment, as if it's the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment that matters, then somehow conveniently forget to finish posting the rest of it- that damned "inconvenient" part that says "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 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. And still in denial about the WHOLE amendment, eh? There's no need to lie to me about it, since your denial is transparent. It's obvious to me when someone has problems quoting something. 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. I didn't miss the part about people avoiding things that make them uncomfortable. 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? I need no excuses for other people's problems, since I refuse to accept responsibility for them. |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "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 %%%% We do not do close order drills (regulate) since we are part of the unorganized militia. (look up Tennessee defense force) Ed Huntress |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: "Johan" wrote in message ... snip Johan, my ISP has been jerking around with its software for the NG server and I've lost a LOT of messages in this thread. I just lost yours once and had to recover it. Occupational hazard of using this medium, I'm afraid. Sorry you're having trouble. Then again, having trouble with a news server might not be all bad: At least you get some time to do something else. As slow and poor a typist as I am, that can add up to a fair slice of time. In case I lose it again I just want to mention that I read it. I didn't find your last message offensive. But I have to go to work now. If I don't reply you'll know why. I must have lost 20 or more messages here and my comma isn't working on my keyboard...oh my gosh my brackets aren't working either so don't give me no crap about my punctuation or lack of it and I hope I remember to recover your message again so I can reply and so on...jesus life is tough without a comma...you don't know what you've got 'till its gone...I can't stop and it's wearing me out and I'll do a Dr. Strangelove if I use any more ellipses...hasta luego for now. |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:
But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise. More people in the US are killed each year by gunfire than in the events of 9-11. What were the results? Think about that one. Hard. -- Cliff |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:
Nutballs will always be with us. There's no preventing them procuring whatever weapon(s) they want for whatever purposes. If you can't trust your citizens with arms, you can't trust them with anything more important, a vote, for instance, or ideas. Is this about killfiles again? -- Cliff |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:37:27 GMT, Johan wrote:
I, and no one else, can control others' fears or discomfiture. So long as one does no physical harm, what matters it how many firearms with how large magazine capacity he might possess? I see that you have a lot of pointed questions to ask the wngers & fundies. -- Cliff |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:23:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote: the Posse Comitatus Act snicker -- Cliff |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:13:49 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote: %%%% We do not do close order drills (regulate) since we are part of the unorganized militia. (look up Tennessee defense force) http://www.kycolonels.org/mission/ Want fries with that? -- Cliff |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
"The Watcher" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:42:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: (snip) It doesn't make me the least bit uncomfortable. Yeah, right. That's why you have no problem quoting the first part of the 2nd Amendment, as if it's the ONLY part of the 2nd Amendment that matters, then somehow conveniently forget to finish posting the rest of it- that damned "inconvenient" part that says "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Easy there, Watcher. You're getting yourself all worked up over nothing. If it eases your mind, I'll tell you exactly what I think the independent clause of the 2nd Amendment means. It means that the federal government shall not interfere with the right of any people in the US to own or to bear firearms. Now, let's turn it around. What do you think the *first* part of that sentence means, and what relation does it have to the second part? Ed Huntress |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
"David Moffitt" wrote in message
nk.net... %%%% 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 %%%% We do not do close order drills (regulate) since we are part of the unorganized militia. (look up Tennessee defense force) And here, I thought the Tennessee Defense Force (now the Tennessee State Guard) was supposed to be "trained and organized." Still another legendary hero turns out to have feet of clay, eh? g You are authorized and "organized" by the State of Tennessee. You have a specific charter under law, subject to state direction. You are not the unorganized militia, although you were, before you signed up for the State Guard. Now you're organized militia. Whether the state is any damned good at organizing it is another question... Ed Huntress |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
And they said Gunner was off topic a lot..............jeezzzz.
|
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 |