Yup, a beauty. Light, low recoil, .45 slug. I was dicing targets at 45'.
Bruharrr!
LOL
The Second Amendment
by Englishman 81 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
TD
I don't see much discussion on the "well regulate militia" part of the single sentance of the amendment. How many militia people do we have currently? I would pose that the National Guard is a militia. Thoughts? Not part of the militia = no guns?
In my opinion, this is simply the fallacy of special pleading
Effectively this is a claim that the "People" of the second ammendment are not be the same as the "People" of the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th ammendments. At least insofar as these latter four amendments are concerned, rights guaranteed the "People" are individual, not collective rights and this has been affirmed by the courts over and over
Of course this raises the question of what a "well regulated" militia has to do with an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Citizen's militias at the time were ubiquitous. Every frontier township had one. The 2nd ammendment incorporated this facet of life in the Americas as a check on federal government. I think this is apparent in the vernacular of the framers of the constitution, where "Militia" is used at least as an alternative to, and frequently in outright opposition to "Standing army."
For example:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. (Madison, Federalist 46)
As used in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Constitution, "Militia" referred to a body consisting of all adult male citizens up to a certain age (anywhere from forty-five to sixty), the goal being to include all who were physically capable of service. As a result, the reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment's preface explicitly agrees with the individual right that the Amendment's operative text sets out because securing to "the people" a right to keep and to bear their own arms made such a broad-based, privately armed force more likely to exist and to be effective.
The National Guard does not qualify as the "militia" of the 2nd ammendment, not only because it did not exist at the time as such, but because it currently is for all intents and purposes, an extension of the standing army under federal control.
-
Forscher
This comes from a column by Devvy Kidd that was put on World Net Daily awhile back and addressess what the founding fathers meant when they put the second amendment in the Constitution:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson to Col. Charles Yancey, 1816
My last column on the feminization of American politics generated some complaints from "sensitive" men. One in particular was such a glaring example of how ignorant Americans are on the history of this republic, it simply cannot go unanswered.
One man named Guy wrote, "Stupid slag ... you have no Second Amendment rights ... the Second Amendment applies to militias, not individuals. ... I suggest you dust off your Constitution and actually read it instead of listening to other idiotic conservatives who haven't got two brain cells to rub together. ... You people make me sick."
Let's address Guy's statement that I have no Second Amendment rights and that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, because this fellow hasn't got a clue. This bastion of historical knowledge is simply parroting what he hears and reads from the controlled media because he's too intellectually lazy to research the history of his own country. He has accepted politically correct rulings by the Ninth (Silly) Circuit Federal Court because the brainwashed never wonder. The Ninth Circuit is the most over turned court in this country, and the gutless in Congress have refused to remove even one of those incompetent, agenda-driven judges.
Those who disagree with Guy, the Ninth Circuit and Handgun Control Inc.:
"The great object is that every man be armed. ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry during Virginia's ratification convention (1788) in "The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution" at 386, Jonathan Elliot (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888).
Could Patrick Henry be more specific? After all, he was directly involved in the process of adopting the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention (1788), "Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850).
Could Samuel Adams, an American Revolutionary leader who was actually there during the process, as was Patrick Henry, have been more clear about an individual's right to private gun ownership?
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ? The Federalist, No. 46 ? James Madison, America's fourth president, known as the father and author of the U.S. Constitution.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson Elliot's Debates, vol. 3, "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"? the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, page 2, column 2, article on the Bill of Rights.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. ? From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. ? The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference ? they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington, America's first president, known as the father of our nation.
"The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ? it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. ? " Thomas Jefferson, America's third president in a letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8. Hamilton was a lawyer and delegate to the Continental Congress.
I guess Guy would say the individuals above who actually birthed this nation and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights had it wrong, but the Ninth Circuit and the anti-American zealots who run organizations like Handgun Control Inc. have it right. Unfortunately, Guy is just another one of the millions of Americans who fire off their mouth before they load their brain.
Guy's ignorance is the result of two things: 1) The government's indoctrination centers (public schools) have removed all comprehensive teaching of the founding of this republic, and 2) America was birthed by a warrior class of men. The feminization of American politics and political correctness has bred an entire generation of men who are nothing more than wimps and sissies. They are too afraid to stand up and protect their own ? with a gun if necessary. Instead, they so wrongly believe that the local coppers will be able to save them or their family from imminent death. Guy would do well to study the laws in his state because here in California, the police are not obligated to come to your defense ? so say the courts.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." Thomas Jefferson
Devvy Kidd "
As we can see, the modern courts pretty much ignore what the founding fathers wanted.
Forscher -
Dragonlady76
allow local law for each community to be the rule of the day.
WRONG!
This only creates a huge mess. I live In Tampa, Hillsborough county, we cannot own fully automatic firearms, in Hillsborough county they are illegal, now less than 1 1/2 miles up the road from my house is Pasco county where it's perfectly ok to own a fully automatic firearm, so here's how it works, you can only own a fully automatic firearm under a corporation and it must be registered to you, you may not sell or transfer the firearm, and the Pasco county sheriff has to reveiw a request from you and sign off on it. So say my husband sets up a corp name "John Doe corp" buys a fully automatic firearm as the corp ceo.....then dies.....I as his wife may not claim the firearm.............very stupid! 2nd Let's say we have the firearm and we decide to sell the house and get a bigger one, well....all the new communties sit between Hillsborough and Pasco county,so that means that I would have to get a land survey before even considering building or buying a house to make sure it sits on Pasco county land, cause I can't take it with me if the house I buy is on the hillsborough side, yet the house next door may be Pasco county, does that make sense to you?<---- It shouldn't it's just ridiculous! So letting the local govs decide is just not a good idea, state regulation is much better.
DL76
-
avishai
The National Guard does not qualify as the "militia" of the 2nd ammendment, not only because it did not exist at the time as such, but because it currently is for all intents and purposes, an extension of the standing army under federal control.
Bingo.
-
Golden Girl
Since when is a "Short" shotgun legal....Isn't that a "Sawed off" shotgun?
Hubby had all kinds of handguns.Great big uns and regular size ones..we were always going and getting permits. We had to go to the police station and apply for a permit..then they would send us a letter to take to the courthouse.Then we would get the actual permit.
I think he had about 10 of them when he got sick. He didn't have long to live and had them all in his name so he had to unload them quick for half price..
I can't tell you how much of a loss we had to take.
Gun dealers really rip you off!..He bought most of them there and they bought them back for maybe a third of what he paid for them.
PS..Hubby was a JW..I guess they are allowed to have hobbies.. No matter what they are.
Snoozy..
-
JustMeNonJDub
Why do Euros and Brits complain about laws that have no effect on them?
Are you truly curious or just trying to elevate your own nationalistic levels?
Simon, that comment about Mickey Mouse Hollywood history made me laugh. What's next from you, a denial of the Holocaust? -
hillbilly
The ATF says "short" for a shotgun in 18 inches.... BTW...This one is registered. "Sawed- Off" such a nasty phrase. I collect Police and Military riot and trench shotguns.... I have several less than 20" but more than 18". Oh...they put grouse, pheasant and quail on the table reall good.
Short for a Rifle is 16 inches.... back in the old west a lot of lever guns carried on horseback or along trap lines were built at 14"....still legal but you need some additional paper work
I can *buy* a brand new 18" inch shotgun from just about any name brand manufacturer right now. Legaly I can modify any shotgun to 18" without any permissions. They will rule out to 18.25 or 18.5 just to keep , measuring-challenged ATF -LEO's from busting you.
Handguns can be up to 14"....I dont think you can put a butstock on a pistol to covert it to a rifle without extra paperwork.
Sorry to hear of your spouses passing, ma'am. Too bad you took a hosing... you live in a daffy state. Here those guns could be left to the widow or whomever was cited in the will or estate and those folks could sell (withing transfer procedures) or register in their names (as long as they meet legal requirments)
The Dealer did what he was supposed to ....he bought your collection at "wholesale".... I guarentee he sold them for the market value you could gotten if you had time to sell them yourself.
~Hill
-
undercover
Why do Euros and Brits complain about lwas that have no effect on them?
Ahh, they're just jealous that we can still carry guns around and shoot Apaches and Redcoats with impunity...
The point has been made that the right to own and bear was for keeping a militia and that a militia is no longer necessary in the US.
But I read somewhere that the founding fathers wanted a civilian militia not only to defend the homeland from invaders but also to keep in check the home government. If the government got too high and mighty then it was up to the people to set matters straight. "Of the people, for the people". Once that ideal was no longer held, then it would be time for a militia to act. Of coure that's almost impossible in the US now.
If someone else already said that, sorry I repeated. If someone has more insight on that and can carry the thought further or correct me if I made a mistake please do. My memory is kind of fuzzy on it.
(I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "I love my country...it's the government I hate")
-
Buster
Wouldn't it be nice if we could keep the greatest country in the world as the 'Land of the Free' instead of letting it become the 'Land of the Cowering for Safety?'
And Simon, you suggest that the Revolutionary War was fought at least in part because the New Worlders didn't want cheap British tea? ... and this is because we grow so much tea over here? ... we were selfishly protecting our rich, landowning tea growers? - thanks for the chuckle