For ‘A Well-Regulated Militia,’ What Firearms, Gear, and Skills Should You Own?
The brutal murders of 20 schoolchildren and six adults in Newtown, CT, stunned the world last week. A mentally ill young man apparently discovered that his long-suffering mother was going to attempt to have him committed to a psychiatric facility; he took out his rage upon her and then his former elementary school’s faculty, staff, and students.
It was senseless. It was barbaric. As parents, it is difficult for us to cope with the thought of having our youngest beloved ripped from us by any method, much less something as abhorrent as intentional, callous murder. No decent person could feel anything but anguish for their loss.
As Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel warned us, however, there is a mentality among the opportunistic political class that demands they “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
While America recoiled, media vultures first pounced upon the survivors while they were still in shock. Since then, they have attacked America’s lawful gun owners, of which there are roughly 100 million.
We’ve heard calls for “gun control” in recent days, including specific demands for a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Detractors question the need for weapons “designed for war” whose “only purpose is to kill”; they insist that you “don’t need an assault rifle” for hunting deer.
This is ignorance, and further, completely misses the point. To cite something I wrote earlier in the week:
The Second Amendment was not written to protect firearms designed for the taking of game, nor firearms designed for sport or individual personal defense, except that such a purpose proves to be militarily useful.
The explicit purpose that the Second Amendment was written was so that civilians that comprised the militia and alarm list would be armed with military-capable arms to depose would-be tyrants.
I’d amend that slightly to more accurately reflect that the intention was to arm citizens with contemporary arms of military utility. To assert that the right applied merely to flintlock muskets suggests that human rights are superseded by advances in technology, which is on its face a preposterous statement. Could anyone rationally argue that freedom of speech does not apply to modern forms of communication?
The Second Amendment was written to ensure citizens had contemporary rifles of military utility, and no single rifle more accurately fits that description today than AR-15 rifles patterned after the M-16 rifle and M-4 carbine that have been the U.S. military standard for half a century.
If Americans are interested in adhering to the Founders’ intentions for a “well-regulated militia” as envisioned, it is our duty not to just own firearms (with exceptions made for religious, mental, and physical limitations), but to own AR-15 rifles and accessories and to train with them to an agreed upon standard of competency. This competency (and proficiency) is what the Founders meant by the term “well-regulated,” which in the English of the day meant “smoothly functioning.”
An unorganized militia’s military efficiency can be measured a number of ways, but the most easy and logical to measure is to require a certain minimal level of equipment and to judge proficiency with military-capable firearms.
As previous militias were required to maintain a minimal level of stores, a modern contemporary militia would want to be equipped with the following:
- an AR-15 rifle or carbine, with iron sights or optics
- at least four but preferably seven or more 30-round magazines
- a chest rig or bandolier for carrying loaded magazines
- a constantly maintained reserve of 1,000 rounds of full-metal jacket (FMJ) ammunition for training and service use if called upon
- appropriate seasonal clothing
- a first aid kit (preferably an individual first aid kid, or IFAK)
- food, water, and temporary shelter for three days
The traditional way to measure weapons proficiency is a marksmanship test such as the Army Rifle Qualification Test or the Marine Rifle Qualification Test. A variant of this test commonly used today is the 25-meter Army Qualification Test (AQT) as administered during Project Appleseed events, which itself is based upon World War I riflemanship standards (disclosure — the author is an Appleseed instructor) but adapted and scaled to fit a 25-meter range.
Ideally, citizens should be able to use AR-15s or comparable arms to demonstrate proficiency at 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards, and 400 yards either on the scaled 25-meter range or, where available, an actual known distance (KD) range. Such training does not constitute violations of the law in regards to the establishment of private militias, yet still ensures a level of firearms proficiency among the general population that serves the deterrent effect the Founders intended: to dissuade the undermining of the republic by enemies “foreign and domestic.” The thought of engaging a nation with tens of millions of self-equipped riflemen capable of decimating government forces from nearly a quarter-mile away is chilling to any would-be tyrant.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the last line of defense against tyranny and, far from being a colonial relic, was most recently used in 1946 in several areas as returning GIs took on tyrannical local government machines. The most significant of these, the “McMinn County War,” saw young veterans home from World War II depose a corrupt and tyrannical government using military arms.
Eleanor Roosevelt wrote at the time of this morally required insurrection:
We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.
In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.
Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.
This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.
When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.
A former first lady of the United States condoned insurrection to restore constitutional law, and against corrupt local representatives of her own Democratic Party. She knew a history uncorrupted by modern-day revisionism.
In the days after April 19, 1775, Founding Father Samuel Adams trod the road between Lexington and Concord at the carnage wrought when British General Thomas Gage triggered the American Revolutionary War while attempting to impose gun control on the Colonials. Surveying the burned-out buildings, bloody lanes, shot-pocked walls, and bodies awaiting burial, he remarked:
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Now is not a time for those whom Thomas Paine labeled “sunshine patriots.” The republic will stand or fall based upon whether its citizens choose to defend the Constitution. Let us pray that all Americans realize the stakes in play, and act with calm restraint.
PIERS MORGAN GETS PWNED
PM: “The 2nd Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns and assault rifles. Fact.”
Carol Roth: “It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection.”
PM: “Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution – must have missed that?”
Carol Roth “Right next to the word ‘muskets’. “
Intent of the Framers wasn’t limited to the technology at the time, you know… just specifies “arms” in there.
It was not the intent of the framers to allow technology to supersede rights. Those rights, as stated in the Bill of Rights, were recognized to hold for all times. As soon as the libs understand this, their concept of a living and breathing document falls apart. And they are sad. Becoming illogical, loud and forget how to bathe.
:]
The “intent of the Framers” included privately owned cannons and warships.
During a riot in Cincinnati in the late 1800s, the city was forced to hire the use of some private cannon.
I wouldn’t mind owning a warship with a volunteer crew ready for if and when we were asked by our government to help. Maybe a fast yacht with a 5-inch gun and a couple .50-cals and maybe a minigun or two.
Why, you wouldn’t even need an amendment for that. “Letters of marque and reprisal.” Article 1, Section 8. Call or write your congressman.
Actually, no letter would have been required historically speaking.
Those ships whose owners were granted said letter had already outfitted their vessels with all manner of cannon. The letter simply gave them official recognition as operating under the authority of the government – which kept them from being hanged as pirates if captured.
Otherwise, they were still free to equip their ships with whatever weapons they chose whether they were operating as a naval vessel for a country or not.
Well, I think the US Court of Appeals, DC decision upheld by SCOTUS in Heller put it pretty well:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
Pg 53 (this is referred to in orals before SCOTUS)
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).
SCOTUS orals discussion
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well -
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”
Misuse of the title “General”. Attorney General Clement should have been addressed as either “Mt. Attorney General” of “Mr. Clement”. In the title of “Attorney General” the word “General” is a modifying adjective to the title of Attorney. It is not a title in itself.
First, he is the Solictor General, not the Attorney General. (That would be Eric Holder.) Second, this is standard usage in the Supreme Court and, I would guess, in all the Federal courts. See the oral argument transcript for any case where the Solicitor General of the US, or of a State, is arguing a case before the Court.
“PWNED” is a non-word use by PUNKS.
It has no place in adult conversation.
Grow up.
Try not to be an archaic curmudgeon uselessly, and appreciate the expressiveness of the vernacular.
PWNED works well to describe the sudden revelation you’ve been had badly overmatched.
pwned.
For the unenlightened, “pwned” is slang for “owned”. It takes this form because in computer games people would write it rapidly and often the finger would hit the p key instead of the o key. later it was deliberately misspelled to mimic this.
You left an “and” out….XDDDDDD……….
Great one! Mr. Morgan needs taken down a notch or two and that one pulled out the trump card on his English attitude.
Chicago, NY, and Washington DC and many other liberal cities are highly regulated cities concerning guns – yet no one is talking about the close to 50 deaths in Chicago in the past 90 days and the fact that over 50 murderers are still running around – that would be Obama’s Chicago – where is the MSM on this?
What they are also intentionally leaving out of Chicago’s gun crime problem is the racial divide. 76% of the gun-crime that results in murder is committed by Blacks killing Blacks. 22% is Hispanics killing Hispanics, many here illegally anyway. That leave 4% of White Chicagoans for the rest of the murders.
Out of 500 murders this year a grand total of 20 committed by Whites many already convicted criminals or having mental health issues.
I think Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the US if you banned Blacks and Hispanics…
Wow – by Piers Morgans logic, only newspapers have first amendment rights. Way to go on the logic there – but that’s typical of liberals, to whom “Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad.” (Spock, 2364)
And only newspapers printed on a hand operated press would be allowed.
If it isn’t armor-piercing, why bother?
The 2nd Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns and assault rifles.
“Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution – must have missed that?”
Why isnt that guy in jail? That’s what the guests should ask. He is a very dangerous man obviously with high capacity ‘clips’ for military style weapons. Eeek!
“The republic will stand or fall based upon whether its citizens choose to defend the Constitution.”
Well Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as the Founding Fathers used the term, the very same Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment, and there was little defense of the Constitution there, and much ridicule even from some “Conservatives” and silence from most other “conservatives”, so don’t count on this being any different.
The problem with that is they didn’t even HINT at what they meant by that anywhere in the Constitution, so it’s been left to “interpretation”.
The only proper course in such a situation is NOT to attack the current President as illegitimate, but to work to get the definition legally changed so that it applies from here forward.
@ FeralCat and Mark V about “Natural Born”.
It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying “born” in the original).
Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .”
In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”
Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.
That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”
This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, “The Law of Nations” a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. Vattel also wrote that a native or indigenes or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society.
This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 to cite two.
With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.”
The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is.
Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. These definitions show that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America – soil and parents are all united in one nation.
As a protection against foreign influences & intrigues, the founding fathers carefully and diligently worked to draft a constitution that would protect this from happening. Strict requirements were put in place for anyone who wished to attain to elected positions in the national government. The President, Vice President, Senator or Congressman must have reached a certain age as well as had residency in the US for a number of consecutive years prior to attaining election to office.
Then there’s citizenship. The president must be a ‘natural born’ citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, however, Senators & Congressmen merely needed to be a citizen.
What is the difference. Why the 2 distinct verbiages? Go back to the debates of the Continental Congress & the Federalist Papers. Congress was comprised of many but the Executive was only comprised of 2. There was less chance for mischief to arise if only a couple of the elected officials in Congress were naturalized from foreign nations, however with only 2 in the Executive, there clearly was a need for more stringent requirements to guard against foreign influences and intrigues.
So, how do we define the difference between ‘citizen’ & ‘natural born’ citizen? Some history:
The feudal form of government that the British had did not allow for natural rights for all citizens. All rights were granted to the people by the government of the Monarchy, the Monarchy was the sovereign not the people.
In the 1st US Supreme Court decision (Chisholm v. Georgia) written by Chief Justice John Jay, we find our 1st clue as to the type of citizenship the founding fathers adopted for the new nation: “The sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]”
If the people are the sovereigns, not the government, then where did the definition come from?
The very 1st commentaries on US law, Lectures on Law by Justice James Wilson, 1791. He writes: “The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation… But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed… As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so… the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent… I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
–> Important – The 1866 act passed by congress stated: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard, decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’.
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826): “(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant.
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome…”
Again there is much more on this subject. But what is most important to know concerning the US Constitution: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson
Sorry these are so lengthy but it seems when I use one sentence then everyone demands “prrof”. So I now provide the proof.
Hear, hear!!!
Thank you for your good work. This matches my understanding completely.
Thank you for saving me the time and effort.
Again; hear, hear!
Except Vattel’s definition was NOT used for the cases you cited, and was explicitly rejected in the Wong Kim Ark case.
So right there you entire “proof” collapses, and we are left with the actual common law definition of “natural born citizen”, which is a citizen born within the territory of a nation whose parents are not foreign diplomats or occupying soldiers.
Parents … that pesky “s” … is a plural … it means both … they would both have to be citizens themselves to transfer a natural born citizen status … a citizen is not a natural born citizen … two citizens have a natural born citizen … a person that comes here from another country becomes a citizen (they are not eligible to become president)they marry a citizen and have a child that child would be a natural born citizen … eligible to become president
As for interpretations and explanations, there is much historical material properly described as legislative history for each of the sections of the Constitution and for the Amendments. The concern of a possible tyranny was very much on the minds of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights – in a number of instances in exactly the same language – descended from the Virginia Declaration of Rights which, in turn, came to us from the Glorious Revolution and the Declaration of Rights of 1688 and 1689 respectively. The people then had a great concern for government run amok – and, strangely enough, the patriots of 1774-1789 had even less provocation to revolt than the patriots today living in the Obama nation.
@ Brutus Aware of the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 (The Dick Act)?
This law breaks the militia down in three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are:
The organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
The unorganized militia and
The regular army.
It also states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied “male” (“person” now that females fight in the military) between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of ANY type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
@ FeralCat – The US Constitution does provide many checks on those who serve as temporary workers within the branches of our fed gov. They are supposed to act as a check on each other through constitutonal means given to them so that another cannot usurp and takeover the powers from a different branch. But cthe legislative and the judicial branches are colluding with the executive.
Then their is the legally binding oath that they all are REQUIRED to tke. It also gives each branch means to stop the other. Most importantly it is also their accountability to us. Let me show you.
Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.
They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.
Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.
Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.
Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.
Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”
Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. The document’s signing gives the number of conditions the weight of law. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.
Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”
“Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.
Justice v. Lang, Edwards v. Kearzey, Canterberry v. Miller: A covenant or agreement between two or more persons, with a lawful consideration or cause. Jacob. A deliberate engagement between competent parties, upon a legal consideration, to do. or abstain from doing, some act. Wharton. A contract or agreement is either where a promise Is made on one side and assented to on the other; or where two or more persons enter into engagement with each other by a promise on either side.
The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations. Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches.
The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government.
And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected & appointed officials.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”
If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,
5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment.
Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Oath of Office for Federal Officials – Employees of the United States Government including all members of Congress are required to take the following oath before assuming elected or appointed office.
5 U.S.C. 3331: “An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”
5 U.S.C. 3333: “…an individual who accepts office or employment in the Government of the United states…shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.”
All those bureaucracy that are making all those decisions that affect our daily lives are also held to that standard. If they did not take the Oath, then they are there illegally.
Federal law specifically prohibits any individual from accepting or holding any position (including elected office) in the United States Government if he advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.
There is more, much more but this is long enough.
Is today long comment day?
Oh. Oaths! Why has noone thought of that?
But, pray illuminate for me just how does one deal with a cadre of absolute, lying scoundrels, once duelling has been outlawed?
Me thinks this the sticky wicket.
Once upon a time, a man might beat a Senator to near death in the Senate chamber itself, with a gutta percha cane, and receive accolades, because the fellow was a lying, rude, prating scoundrel. Today, we nominate the scoundrel to be Secretary of State, and nary a peep is heard, from either side.
We live in a scummy time, peopled by a scummy people. History shows that to always end badly for the scum. Alas, the vastly greater number of the destroyed are not scum, merely bystanders.
Hitler was his own last victim, as was Napoleon, as was Caligula.
Someone please tell me Obama is NOT the Anti-Christ?
With something to back that claim up?
There is no such thing as an impeachable offense. Clinton proved that. The entire Ninth Circuit proves it daily. Yet the ‘Pubs still think they are living in an age of honor and reason. Boehner must go. I nominate the nearest thing to Attila the Hun for Speaker.
Scorched earth. Or bring back duelling.
Your choice.
I’ll fight Oweenie first, if noone else will. He’s such a wuss. And Biden wouldn’t even know what day it was, so you’d win by default.
The Donks have never been big fans of the Constitution. They’ve been violating their oaths for over two hundred years. What method do you suggest to bring them ’round to compliance, now?
I suggest “secession”. Resolve it with a Constitutional Congress.
All else is airy persiphlage.
This government is out of control. New thinking is needed.
Obama is not the anti-Christ. A twit lacks the personal weight that such an evil would require. Muhammad maybe, Obama no.
And no secession until we try the Constitutional convention route first.
He and the TWANLOC, however, are the Anti-Americans.
Secession, revolution and civil war are horrible to contemplate. They may be necessary, but lets try all the gentler remedies first.
(And remember that many of the military heroes of the past were called “gentlemen” by their peers.)
“It also states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied “male” (“person” now that females fight in the military) between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of ANY type, and as many as they can afford to buy.”
You have two critical errors in this:
First, the militia does not automatically encompass females at this point in time.
Females may voluntarily join the regular army, organized militia (National Guard) and register for the unorganized militia, but they are not enrolled by default, and thus not subject to automatic call up.
Second, the right to keep and bear is NOT incumbent on that status as a member of the unorganized militia. If it were, it would suggest that the government has an absolute right to bar ownership of guns to anyone 46 years of age or older.
@ KBright
Good post. It helps to occasionally go back to the facts, instead of assuming we know them. Sometimes the details are important, rule of law instead of men and all that implies.
I particularly like the point that these oaths remain binding even after a particular peiod of service ends. “I..swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,…”
“When in the course of human events……..”
They think we forgot,,,,we ain’t never going to forget.
Americans can be governed but NEVER ruled.
Left/liberals’ favorite fantasy is ruling the little people like Marie Antoinette telling ‘em to eat cake… silly left/libtards.
That didn’t even work out in France…
That didn’t even happen in France.
It’s a myth. She never said it.
She would have if she’d thought of it.
And you KNOW THAT FOR SURE, BECAUSE YOU WERE THERE?
Don’t speak stupidity. You have absolutely no idea what she said or did not say.
Stick to your own knowledge or your own opinion. Neither can be called lies.
But you never met the bitch. HOW WOULD YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT SHE EVER SAID?
Pray don’t be stupid.
I believe it was Rousseau who wrote that phrase in his work ‘Confessions’ when Marie Antoinette was only nine years of age. He may have even adapted the saying from a Chinese legend. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
Of COURSE she said it. She felt bad for them and was suggesting something for the starving people to eat, and was misunderstood as not caring. Didn’t ANYBODY watch “Fantasy Island”? That show gave us so many elusive truths….
Left/liberals’ favorite fantasy is to be able to harm others without consequence. This is their Utopian wet dream. Their outlook relegates human beings to the category of things, animals or machines. Their fundamental premise is that you have no right to your own life.
We’ve allowed them to get the upper hand, and they are on the cusp of achieving their goal of absolute power. At this point, there is only one way to stop them. Only one way.
The quote of Samuel Adams….”If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
Sam must have been confident that he was addressing a minority. Possibly a substantial minority but only just that. In today’s environment the term “wealth” could be translated as “money taken from the taxpayer to be transferred to me”. On November 6th we discovered that the “hand-lickers” when added to the hands that are being licked outnumber the “Americans (that) can be governed but NEVER ruled” (as you put it). Never say never. The newly discovered minority will either cope or go to jail. Do you sense any more than simply grousing and bitchin’ about the transformation that Obama promised? I wish that I could share your optimism. It appears that we Americans will simply do the go-along-to-get-along routine. John Boehner is no Samuel Adams.
Yooper,
Adams may not have been addressing a small group. To my knowledge, though there are undoubtedly some who have more, about 1/3 of colonials were pro-british, 1/3 were pro-independence, and 1/3 sat on the sidelines.
Men of action won the Revolutionary War, and against tremendous odds. Important to remember.
Men of action fighting for their “GOD-Given rights” won their freedom over overwhelming odds. They were trusting in God’s divine providence and assistance. Sadly, today’s fraction of the population who believed enough in natural rights to take up arms and jeopardize everything they had by taking on the established order would probably not want to bring any mention of a just and righteous God into the conversation and would therefore fail in meeting their goals. Just saying.
You leave out a very important part, the French. Without the assistance of the French the Revolution of 1776 would have been crushed. The French stopped the supply line with their Navy and supplied Hessian mercenaries.
Hessians were in fact regular troops of German princes, mostly from Hesse. King Geo III and Hesse’s Landgrave were blood kin, cousins through their mothers. Gold was paid to the Landgrave for every Soldier, more gold for loss of life or limb. These soldiers used their regular uniforms, weapons, colors, and got customary wages. There were about 36,000 white coats fighting alongside the redcoats. After about what, ten or eleven years of the revolutionary war only about 25,000 made it home. although not necessarily relevant the resultant enormous amount of gold apparently played a part in the foundation of Rothschild Banking. I beg your pardon if I misunderstood but you seem to have been implying that they were on our side. Hessians were good soldiers fighting for the wrong cause.
I would disagree with you Mr. Owens only to the extent that it is irrelevant what “reasonable measures” the Federal government wishes to impose upon the citizenry vis-a-vis firearms.
ANY attempt by the Federal government to regulate arms is in conflict with the plain words, meaning and intent of the Framers – it is a prohibition upon government; shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.
It matters not if people like Piers Morgan think you’re “unbelievably stupid” for wanting an Abrams tank in your garage just in case or a basement full of ammunition. The Second Amendment does not require the good opinion of a British citizen, thank you very much, or a president of dubious loyalties for that matter (I’m talkin’ to you, Barry).
I suggest that the next wave of protest be given the moniker of “Well-Regulated Militia”, just as the Tea Party got its name.
The tyrants have pretty much eviscerated the First Amendment, now they’re working on the Second.
Obama is the man who the Founders greatly feared might come to power in the nation that they were creating. It is up to him whether he sufficiently agitates the citizenry of this nation, at least the citizens who care enough to be informed about the founding principles of this nation and won’t back down from the challenge of defending the Constitution of the United States from its domestic enemies.
Well, I’d like the name ‘well armed lambs’ based on this quote attributed toBen Franklin:
-”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
There is little doubt that criminally bent thugs, plus evil and mentally ill people will always seek outlets for their rage. This is NOT news. And it is a fact that banning weapons will not stop their killing. Think of it this way:during prohibition, did people drink less than now? Do people who want to fry their brains with drugs have a hard time getting them, simply because they are illegal? Of course not.
However, there is a world of difference between keeping illegal drugs illegal and banning firearms. This is because law abiding citizens would NEVER shoot fellow Americans, unless their lives are threatened. But can one think of anything life saving in illegal drugs, worth making them legal? Of course not.
The point being, there was a simple reason why the Founders exacted the Second Amendment. And this has EVERYTHING to do with an out of control leadership and the left knows it too. And the fact that it has been proven, that armed guards make it that much harder for killers to kill the kiddies, but ‘gun-free’ zones do just the opposite – only the killer is thus armed ! – does not resonate with the left.
It has never been about the kids. Never.
But it has been about grabbing American’s legally held guns – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/07/barack-hussein-obamas-deconstruction-plans-green-wise-via-the-economy-disarming-the-citizens-via-gun-control-connecting-the-dots-addendum-to-the-second-term-plans-of-an-obama-presidency-c/
Wake up, America!!
“There is little doubt that criminally bent thugs, plus evil and mentally ill people will always seek outlets for their rage.”
thought you were talking about Broke Insane Obummer here.
All this is well said. But doesn’t the non-militia-but-pretty-damn-close model need a bit of reworking to bring it up to date? The world has changed a lot since WWI. Anyone capable of regularly producing 1in groups or better at 25yds w/ a decent .22 — prone and with a sling — is probably a candidate for more specialized training, up to, maybe, a Barrett 50cal or equivalent (can that be done legally?). And if you can field-strip a variety of weapons in the dark, then maybe you’re a candidate for demolition and anti-Drone training.
The goal is to produce winners who survive, not costumed ‘re-enactors’ playing in the grass on weekends. One way or another, the gaps must be filled — the interests and response times of government law enforcement on the one hand, and the private citizen on the other hand simply don’t coincide. The implications of doing nothing are dire.
There was an article on this web site a few days ago written by an ex-cop who pointed out that there aren’t enough police officers in communities in today’s Hussein depression to deal with an event like the Connecticut shooter. There are only about 500K uniformed servicemen in today’s gutted military. There are over 2 million licensed deer hunters that blow through Texas each year during hunting season. Multiply these numbers in just about every state in the country. There simply are not enough agents of government to keep a lid on a large group of patriots determined to resist. When the tyranny of the federal government exceeds the level at which this group of patriots refuses to submit, then all bets are off. And we may be just about at that level now…
You are right about the “well regulated” part. However, if there was to be a revolution, wouldn’t the fact that one side has nukes be a problem?
Would-be Dictator: “Oh. you have a problem with me?” (pushes button) “Oh look, there goes Denver. Is there anyone else?”
My boss, on the other hand, when I spoke with him of this said the military would never go along with that and would intervene well before.
I don’t know. Seems to me that there are quite enough people who truly believe this progressive stuff to pull that off.
I hope I’m wrong.
Good grief man, why did you pick the Mile High? I’ve been looking out the window every 5 minutes. If only I had finished stocking my crawl space for 12-21-12.
It is my personal belief that in a total worst case scenario of armed resistance against our government, all branches of our armed forces would shatter. There are enough people in our military that take their oath seriously and will not comply with orders that are contrary to the Constitution to seriously disrupt the ability of the military to function. On the other hand, I fear that there are are enough people there who will act against their conscience and oath and simply follow the orders of the authority figures that they feel obligated to obey to cause any conflict to be long and devastating, i.e. hundreds of thousands dead and the USA weaker than it has ever been. (This weakness will not be overlooked by the fanatics who desire nothing less than the death of every American. In this scenario, you can guarantee that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will attack.)
All that being said, I do not see such an event happening. Although for the first time in my life I do see it as a very remote possibility. I place armed resistance firmly in the “possible but not probable” catagory and to keep it that way we must fight this fight with the ballot box and by joining the NRA and other like-minded organisations.
Your boss, as bad as I hate to say it, is probably just engaging in wistful thinking. Think about Ruby Ridge, Waco, and any other of hundreds of episodes readily available for research on the internet where heavily armed agents, both federal and local, descended upon citizens with the full intent of disarming and neutralizing them.
Ditto the Mile High reference. I’m just 60 miles north of there!
I’m honorably-discharged National Guard. I don’t think the militia would fire on civilians. It’s just not honorable. We take an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath is not rescinded when we muster out.
If you want to see what happens to a tyrant that fires on their own people, look up “Syria” or “Assad”.
Except we won’t be in Denver. We’ll be in Georgetown at 2 am. Want to nuke DC to get us? I’d personally consider that a fair trade.
And, of course, you would have to be able to actually launch the weapons. Hint: he can order it done but not carry it out personally.
Black Elk: Amen. I would add that the oath sworn by our military personnel is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President.
AWRM.ORG
Sure, many there are feds. Pay attention, don’t be stupid, and even if the whole admin there get alphabet soup paychecks…it’ll will do far more good than harm.
I’m whole-heartedly in favor of 30-round magazines for ARs; I’m also in favor of shorter lower capacity magazines, which generally tend to present fewer reliability problems, and make the gun easier to shoot from the prone position.
I’m not enough of a rifleman to add this with authority, but have been advised by competent riflemen a good sling, training in its proper use, and lots of practice can make an enormous contribution to accuracy.
When shooting a long gun, my husband says the same thing. The sling is not there to carry the weapon, it is to keep it steady.
I took a high-power rifle match clinic a few years ago. In high-power matches the “hasty-sling” is not allowed, but they do have some convoluted sling procedure that is most difficult to acquire. IMHO hasty-sling wins every time, but who am I to say, never won a match in my life.
The Appleseed events teach both sling methods. I’ve always used the hasty sling, but I learned to use to better effect. That other sling method is indeed convoluted and take more than a few seconds to properly set up. It’s also very effective, but I default to the hasty sling every time. Al of my slings are tuned for ‘hasty’.
One other point, the point of the 2nd is that the militia be under no political control but it’s own conscience, chiefly through the means of the government being unable to control the private ownership–not merely of weapons–but of all items of military utility*. This means armored and special purpose vehicles, which are armed, encrypted comms, etc. This does not mean, as with regulations in the revolutionary era, that especially dangerous items cannot be required to be stored in a magazine–as with large amounts of gunpowder–but that the government does not have the keys to that magazine. Knob Creek ought of right to be far more interesting than it already is…
*This does in fact prevent WMDs for entering the issue, because strictly speaking their use is illegal per the rules of war, their use cannot be made specific to exclude non-combatants. They are weapons of retaliatory strategic use only as a matter of defacto international law, to my knowledge the Geneva conventions in fact prohibit their use under any circumstances.
Stinger missiles are not prohibited by international law. Neither are RPGs.
Do you really want ordinary American citizens to be able to own those?
They can sure come in handy in an insurrection–right now Obama is giving Stingers to the Syrian rebels.
But a) we’re not in an insurrection, and b) if someone goes crazy with a Stinger, the resulting carnage could dwarf what happened at Sandy Hook.
“Do you really want ordinary American citizens to be able to own those?”
Absolutely–they can now–it is a matter of licensing, not illegality. I know of a group of people who gather annually to fire their 155mm howitzer, and there is more than one WWI French 75mm operable in civilian hands. I suppose you need to change your underwear now?
“But a) we’re not in an insurrection, and b) if someone goes crazy with a Stinger, the resulting carnage could dwarf what happened at Sandy Hook.”
Which is why it would be in keeping with the Founder’s intent for military weapons of non-specific area of effect–those which cannot be targeted to impact individuals–in magazines. As long as it isn’t the government which has the keys to those magazines.
What you will find, oh tremulous fool, is that liability and tort law is as entire a “fix” for what you fear as can be accomplished. How many soldiers go off their nut and misuse those tools now?
Proud, multiple gun owner and Constitutional originalist as I am, it does seem to me that there are certain practical difficulties in the literal application of the 2nd Amendment. I can’t afford an F-22, but the government can, for a while yet.
As Huey Long is rumored to have said, “Whatcha’ gonna do now the Feds have the A-tomic bomb?”.
True, but a timeshare would be awesome. Love to see some black sky and the curve of the earth.
Huey Long was assassinated in 1935, ten years before the bomb.
He was truly a man ahead of his time.
And besides it wasn’t Huey Long who made that statement, it was Thomas Jefferson.
Huey, the same thing I did before that: if they want to nuke their own cities (where more of the Democrats live), go right ahead. Of course, they might find out that not every minion is that crazy.
International law has **** all to do with The Constitution.
International law is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as being any ratified treaty, which treaty is superior to federal and state law, per the constitution. The US has ratified the treaty forbidding the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of weapons which are of a disproportionate or indiscriminate effect–WMDs are such and their first use is proscribed by both US and international law. They are of questionably legal use as a retaliatory measure, and as they cannot be used legally in a first use in a conflict are not militia weapons. They are in fact doomsday weapons and their acquisition by a militia is frankly purely a drain of resources on that militia which in such a foreseeable conflict could be put to better use.
Whatever international treaties agree to in opposition to what The Constituton plainly states, it’s not, strictly speaking, legal…or constitutional.
That’s true with any law.
Unfortunately, Warren, that’s not strictly true. In fact, it’s not true at all.
The Founders blew it on this one. THEY understood what you are saying, and THEY understood that treaties don’t govern what a nation does within its own borders, but they didn’t write it that way. They ASSUMED those things, but they actual text says otherwise. IT makes treaties equal with the Constitution.
That needs to be changed!
Constitutional construction. A term used by the Founders in applying The Constitution. Sometimes, mistakenly, called ‘original intent.’
See also: ‘Plain Meaning Rule.’
The plain meaning of the constitution is that ratified treaties take precedence over all federal and state laws.
It is necessary to read the US constitution as being internally consistent, rather than capricious.
When the Constitution states that ratified international treaties are equivalent to the Constitution as law of the land, it assumes that the ratifiers of the treaty would be true to their oath of office – and therefore would never ratify a treaty that was unconstitutional. There is no confusion or conflict there, so long as the Congress only ratifies treaties that are constitutional!
Inalienable rights means what it means. Either overturn the 2nd Amendment or leave us alone. And refocus the debate back where it belongs; on the elephant in the room – mental health.
And refocus the debate back where it belongs; on the elephant in the room – mental health.
Won’t happen. Because that would focus attention on the culture of death that our darlings on the Left have so carefully and assiduously cultivated for the last few generations.
In fact, the Second Amendment has been held by SCOTUS to specifically protect possession of “military-type” weapons.
In the U.S. vs. Miller (1938) decision, the Federal District Court of Western Arkansas had held that the National Firearms Act of 1934′s prohibition of a short-barrelled (i.e., “sawed-off”) shotgun (one with barrel[s] less than 18″ in length) was unconstitutional because sawed-off shotguns were recognized as suitable for military use.
The Supreme Court overturned the District Court decision, specifically stating that the Second Amendment was intended to protect civilian possession of standard military arms, whatever they may be, for purposes of self-defense. And that since a sawed-off shotgun was not considered such, its classification by the NFA as “any other weapon” for tax and registration purposes does not violate the Constitution.
Seen in the light of U.S. vs. Miller (1938), it could be argued that the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, and the attempts to revive it now, are both unconstitutional precisely because they openly and above-board attempt to prohibit “military-style weapons”.
This probably explains why, when you mention the decision to supposed scholars of Constitutional law who support gun bans, they either (a) have “officially” never heard of the decision, and/or (b) want to change the subject very quickly.
Or to put it simply, the Second Amendment wasn’t written about “hunting” or “target” weapons. Except insofar as they were, and are, useful for self-defense.
clear ether
eon
Sounds like you have been reading “unintended consequences” An excellent volume and which should be required reading sometime along 8th or 9th grade.
Absolutely. That old “hunting weapons” red herring is getting really old and stinky. The 2nd Amendment was not addressing hunting rights, it was specifically aimed at resistance to tyranny.
A couple years ago a recently retired US Marine told me that he was worried about the new “USMC Security Battalions” that Obama had ordered organized. He said these units were being organized and trained only to “suppress civil uprisings within the United States by US citizens”. Now no one seems to know anything about these USMC units, so if anyone out there does, hopefully some info will appear here as a reply.
The military oath of enlistment is conflicting in it’s allegiance; Pledging to uphold the Constitution and “obey” the President.
At what level of betrayal to your oath of office, sedition, treason, disloyalty, and subversion, do you become an enemy of the State, and NOT have to be obeyed?
And since, as President, with a majority of your soldiers occupying the highest levels of government, where would the authority to overthrow this regime come from? The Federal government has effectively knee capped the States’ rights.
Looks to me, that We would have to expedite our protests through the Supreme Court; And expect to get taxed even more for the effort. Sounds sarcastic; But not far off recent historical events.
I’d say, in reality, We are at, or beyond the point where the militia has authority to act. But with the confusion and ignorance reigning so supreme in the numerous enriched tribal areas, any sane mans reaction is to gather his family and hunker down for the long haul. We already have too many rich barbarians on the loose.
When I was in, the oath was to obey “all lawful orders”.
That got changed sometime later. It’s no longer qualified with “lawful” orders.
It’s a very Eridanus change.
????
Where in the world did that come from????
That should have read, ‘a very dangerous change’.
Autocorrect, gotta love it.
The Officer oaths and the Enlisted Oaths are slightly different.
Officers swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Enlisted members make the same wrt the Constitution, but also have added “and obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice” or words very nearly to that effect.
If they have changed the oath from “lawful orders” to “orders”, that is really troubling. The UCMJ, however, still makes the distinction, last I looked at it. If that has been amended, which would require an act of Congress, then we really need to worry.
I do not support the assault weapons ban because banning any firearm is just unconstitutional. Beyond that, I beleive the AR15 is a pretty poor excuse for a weapon. The NATO 5.56 round was selected because it would disable, not kill enemy combatants. During the Vietnam war, American GI’s found the AK47 far more reliable and deadly than the M16′s they were issued. Pick up an M-10 and a couple thousand rounds of soviet surplus ammo for a lot less money (and a lot more firepower) than that AR15 popgun.
Personally, I’ll stick with my Winchester 30-30. If I have to shoot the bad guys I want them to go down on the first shot.
Two thumbs up for the AK47. My personal choice by far.
What’s to fear? A Federal gov’mint which purchased over a billion hollow point bullets (which can not, by Geneva Convention, be used in war)? A Prezy who signed enough executive orders to take control of all the resources of the U.S. and put them under federal control. An EPA which is being used to terrorize property owners? The Kelo decision which says that a property developer has a higher claim on your property than you do? A government that overtaxes and over promises and which is hell-bent on redistributing your wealth? FEMA camps, at least three per each state to be used for what? Undefended and an open border where Islamic literature is found, along with the rape trees and Holders Fast and Furious guns? A government that watched on live feed video, our ambassador, and three state dept. employees die while planes sat on the ground in Italy? A government which takes “refugees” which are passed onto us by the U.N.?
And all the time our representatives go on tv and lie and lie about facts. They lie about positions. And they absolutely have zero credibility; zero integrity.
Hell, its a wonder the gun shops aren’t literally sold out down to the last BB gun!!
I’m not too worried about the military attacking US citizens. The much bigger worry is that local unrest would be the excuse for federal law enforcement to assume “emergency” general police powers. The big potential conflict is when armed citizens band together to defend their subdivision from outside looters. The efficient way to do this is to set up check points at the small number of streets entering the neighborhood and only let residents in. This will have a disparate impact on minority apartment dwellers who may wish to take a short cut through the neighborhood or may wish to steal from the houses. What happens if law enforcement tries to disarm home owner DIY neighborhood law enforcement in a politically correct manner totally inconsistent with crime statistics? My general sense is that local law enforcement would tolerate armed neighborhood watch, but killing looters would attract the heavy foot of government to “do something” about the unrest and that “do something” would involve seizing guns.
By your covoluted logic, Mr Morgan, we woild not be sujected to you first amendment exercise, because you would have been limited to communication by pamphlet, or letter- quill, ink and paper.
The “Freedom of Speech” clause clearly did not mean radio and television. Obamas radio address on Saturday and his endless campaign stops must stop immediately or we are all in danger of our heads exploding! Piers Morgan must return to England tomorrow. Msnbc must pgo blank…sooner rather than later. Joy Behar, along with current tv must begin a children’s programming line up. Muskets…what a laugh!
We need to be able to own whatever it may take to fight and defeat any totalitarian government that may want to take our country away from us.
[FTA] AR-15 rifles patterned after the M-16 rifle and M-4 carbine that have been the U.S. military standard for half a century.
All I can say to that is OUCH! Makes me feel old. In the late ’60′s we trained (JROTC) with the old M-1 rifle and the Sgt’s Majors and trainers from the Army called the M-16 the Mattel Gun. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle as that company developed the firearm for the military. Colt ended up “low-bidder” for the production phase.
And as my old first sergeant used to say back in 1969 while holding up the M-16 on the firing range. “Always remember this weapon which is supposed to save your life was built by the low bidder!”
Blast from the past! First time I was issued an M-1 rifle was a revelation for me. It was quite apparent that God is indeed in heaven and the world is level that such a marvel of american engineering was in my hands. Sometime later I was issued an M-14. Wow! It was like, yes, Jesus does love me. Those of intense religious sensitivities will kindly forgive me as I mean no disrespect.
You got it, Uncle. That old M-1 was a wonder to behold…in ROTC anyway. The swelling has almost gone down on my “M-1 thumb” too. Gotta be quick!
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes DESTRUCTIVE of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The purpose of the Second Amendment is recognized in the Declaration of Independence..
This is one of the more sensible -and accurate- articles I’ve seen about The Second Amendment on a conservative site, especially in recent times.
Elegantly stated, Mr. Owens.
And in the spirit of the second amendment, I’m shopping for a drone with laser guided missiles. I want to minimize collateral fatalities with my ma deuce.
I had to qualify on both the M-1 and AR in my military tour. The M-1 had a sling, but not the AR. It seems the philosophy of spraying more inaccurate shots was more efficient than one well placed shot.
I’ll take my drone with air to air and air to surface laser guided missiles to keep my perimeter free of government mercenaries.
Also searching the Israeli used military equipment website for a serviceable Iron Dome system.
Well armed militia, indeed.
There are some extremely advanced open source hardware and software projects for autonomous aerial vehicles.
And another area of effective self defense; Radio communication. Then comes an effective form of code, that may be broken, but if it slows them down, that may be enough.
I visualize multiple $$$ when I think of the number of doomsayers fortifying their homesteads, with what there is to learn and be taught about survival techniques and the necessity for high tech solutions to function in the aftermath.
No matter; How do We minimize government moles, of which there are currently adequate numbers to support the heretic residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Mr. Morgan confirms my prejudice that English people, or the ones I have met, just don’t understand what liberty means. Or what a consitutional legal safeguards. That culture seems more the might makes right philosophy so common in the world.
What do you expect from a nation where the “pesants” were never allowed weapons except when pressed into military service by the aristocracy?
The common man in Europe does not have a tradition of freedom nor of the bearing of arms. They are used to their “betters” running things for them. The unelected Bureaucrats of the EU are merely a return the the aristocracy or yore.
Actually, our 2A right pre-existed the constitution. That is, the rulings in Heller determined that the wording “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” was an indication that the constitution was not granting or establishing a new right. It was written to ensure that the rights the colonists had as Englishman to keep and bear arms would alse exist under the new government.
The English eventually gave up their right gradually, we’re doing it a bit slower.
Spot on. If we let people like Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Piers Morgan, Rahm Emanuel et al continue to chip away at our God-given rights, we deserve to be left defenseless. An editorial in todays’ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette asks, “Who needs a 30-round clip?”, which left me thinking, who are you to decide my needs. If I want to have a 30-round clip, I have that right. My purpose for doing so, as long as I harm no one else, is none of anyone else’s business.
Liberals are all about freedom of choice . . . unless it infringes on their world view. I have young children who occasionally run a fever and now because of overreaching, nanny-state liberals, I can’t have a mercury thermometer with which to check their temperature. My parents used mercury thermometers on me and my 3 siblings, and we’re all just fine. The new digital thermometers often give erratic readings, so to me, their accuracy is questionable. Liberals want to regulate the type of thermometer, light bulb, toilet, automobile fuel, and now firearm that I have and use, and I’m fed up with being told what I do or do not need and/or what’s best for me by busybody liberals.
All the above points are academic in nature. And although most are clearly supportive of the second amendment as is, none of them give this old woman any degree of confidence that there is enough communication or commitment even on the local levels to form anything other than a ragtag group of die hard individualists. If we’re all on our own, it’s a huge disadvantage when push comes to shove. I feel very sad for the youths of this nation, on many levels.
1000 rounds? Sorry, these days it’s ammo or groceries. I was hoping to pile some up for Xmas, but the Newtown CT atrocity and resultant calls for a ban caused a run and a price hike.
Dang it.
For those on the left the US Constitution is a piece of paper suitable for flushing down the Crapper. That is why they have little understanding of the intent of said document. Their, unspoken, intent is to disarm the opposition and be able to kill them at will. We are dealing with the mind set of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, leftist murders all.
Well, I think we need to have an adult conversation about assault bathtubs and swimming pools. According to the CDC, about ten people die each day from drowning in non boat related incidents; two out of that ten are children under the ages of 14. That’s 730 children killed, each year, by an assault bathtub or swimming pool. Obviously we need to ban assault bathtubs and swimming pools, of which the latter are more apt to be found among the callous upper one percent. Surely the upper one percent can forgo such conspicuous consumption and make that needed sacrifices for the safety of the children. No one needs an assault bathtub or swimming pool when perfectly good showers can suffice.
Don, especially those ‘high-capacity’ assault bathtubs & swimming pools. People don’t need more than a few drops of water in which to bathe, and just a few gallons in which to swim. I mean, come on, who needs all that water? And while we’re at it, let’s ban mercury thermometers that are accurate. Oh, wait, we did that. And let’s ban toilets that use too much water & actually work. Oh, wait, we did that, too. And let’s ban 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. Oh, wait, we’re about to do that.
EVERY able bodied adult male, that is lawfully authorized, should own a ‘battle rifle’; Be it M-1, 03 Springfild, 1917 Enfield, or AR….the ‘militia’ is the people and they should be well armed and equipped. Minimum of 500 rounds of ‘ball’ ammo, too.
I was curious about what a modern militia might have for weapons so I did a google news search and there were articles about militias in Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Syria and a few other places. In addition to rifles like these they all seeem to have RPGs as well. Some of them have heavier weapons as well but all of them seem to have some sort of grenade launcher. I think a grenade launcher fits in the category of “arms” and no militia these days would be without them.
Except . . .
We all aren’t in a well-regulated militia.
We are in an explicitly reserve status subject to no regulations other than registration, and with no expectations of self-armament or drilling.
Only those people who deliberately register for the fully regulated portion of the militia, with requirements for regular drill, and with federally provided arms, would wind up qualifying. And as it goes, they are equipped at least that well.
For a “well-regulated militia” to function “smoothly” requires more than individual proficiency at arms. It requires active and coordinated drill with others, to function in small and medium sized units, under the supervision of commissioned and non-commissioned officers.
Are you calling for a return to the original militia requirements of the U.S., where everyone must register with their county registrar and appear for regular instruction and drill, and as a consequence maintain their own arms, which would be excluded from any debt liens, public or private?
It is a curious pretense to point to the equipment required by those original laws as a standard for modern equipment yet deny the training and organization mandated by those same laws.
Christ on a crutch…
The ‘well regulated militia’ clause does not, in any way, shape or form, preclude or supplant the right of individuals to be armed or to carry those arms…in whatever manner seems appropriate to them.
Shall not be infringed. Period. Dot. End of discussion. Federal licensing, regulations and permits are in direct opposition to ‘shall not be infringed.’ iow, they are un-constitutional and illegal laws, to begin with.
Go look up what the Founders had to say about obeying un-constitutional laws…
I never said it did.
That is why it is ridiculous to base modern standards of lawful gun ownership on original standards of militia gun ownership.
The United States already has a “well-regulated militia” commonly known as the “National Guard”. Do you propose that the presently unorganized collection of concerned citizen with weaponry organize into an alternate National Guard? And who is the enemy this new militia is supposed to rise up against? The duly elected government(s)?
If you look at the history of the world in the last century, you will find vastly more people were killed by their own governments than died in wars, or as victims of crime.
this article claims 100 million, others have said it was closer to 200 million
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm
When the duly elected government devolves to tyranny, yes.
Note, members of the US military DO NOT take an oath to the government, or the president, or the armed forces themselves. They swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…. their obedience to lawful orders of those in the hierarchy is predicated on the direction being consistent with the constitution.
I have never suffered under the delusion that we as Americans are any better than people anywhere else in the world. That we are somehow immune to the temptations or errors others have succumbed to throughout history. I’ve always thought we’re like humans anywhere else on earth, at any time period.
Yes, it can happen here. Now? Maybe not, in the future, perhaps, maybe even likely given the flow of history. If we give up a fundamental right now in a panic, we give up that insurance forever into the future…
“And who is the enemy this new militia is supposed to rise up against?”
People like you and all the other idiots, looters, and moochers that support the Soros Junta.
Thank you for your cogent reply, Mr. (or Mrs. ?) Chance. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, so personal attack are of little value or consequence. So who is your “well-regulated Militia” going to rise up against? Poor people? Old/young people? Liberals? Brown people? Muslims? The National Guard, FEMA, or BATF? The elected government(s)? People you don’t like? Soros rantings are of little interest.
The ones you rise up against are the same people the Jews did not rise up against. Do you think I mean German Nazi’s or do you think I mean those that will do whatever is necessary to erode our liberties. Evil does not have a name, ethnicity, race, or color that is recognizable nor that is common to the evil cause. Evil is recognized by its works and its words. Evil is Biblical and if you were to read the Christian Bible…maybe you have…you will find out exactly what is being talked about. Nothing said by anyone you disagree with should lead you to believe that they wish harm on a class or culture or race of any people. Evil transcends all worldly tangible “things”. Evil is in the heart of man and grows like a cancer. It is up to the individual man to recognize the inherent evil in himself and to give it no quarter or recognition. Hope this helps you sort through things!
Anon..It matters Little, what Group of Uniforms Comes against us, DHS,FBI,BATF, or
Army,Marines, AF, Or Coast Guard,,when they Pick sides, and fire on the Citizens, THEY are the Domestic Enemy! PERIOD!
Semper Fi…Maybe!
You’re reading the clauses backward. It’s that pesky comma, isn’t it?
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary…”
A militia, such as but not limited to the National Guard, subject to the whims of an out-of-control central government, would not be “regulated.”
The constitutional purpose of private ownership of arms is to well regulate that militia. I assure you that this reading is less tortured than that favored by certain parties to this debate. Go ahead, take a step back and give it a think.
*The United States already has a “well-regulated militia” commonly known as the “National Guard”.*
Sorry, Brutus, the NG is the “organized militia”. The “unorganized militia” being most of the rest of the male population between 17 and 45 which is not currently in the active military. (10 USC 311) Consider that in time of war, the draft draws from the unorganized militia, and did several times until the 1970s.
“Well-regulated” at the time the Constitution was written referred to something that functioned to a minimum specification, or better. And usage of the time defined things from appetites to time pieces to firearms (regulating a shotgun is to adjust it to shoot to point of aim) as being “well regulated”.
The organized and unorganized militiae can, and should, both be “well-regulated”.
A rebuilt militia would be locally used. It could be used to protect schools, patrol neighborhoods, react to disasters, etc.
It would be a threat against tyrannical gov’t at the local and federal level as organized groups of armed citizens are very hard to oppress.
If you want to limit arms to the technology of the times than Freedom of the Press would be limited to quill pens and manual printing presses. Forget Freedom for the internet or any electronic form of communication. SOunds like ti would serve Arab dictatorships, China and Russia well.
If you allow them to come for the guns, what freedom is next to go.
Cuomo of NY is talking confiscation of certain weapons. CT is talking a 50% tax on ammunition. THey are Democrats of course and money is never far away from their thoughts.
M-14, 100 rounds of ammo.
Colt 1911, 100 rounds of ammo.
Mossberg 12 gauge, 100 rounds of ammo.
There. That aught to do it.
And what would yo shoot after lunch?
I guess they don’t teach that stuff in English schools anymore about the significance of the free man with a bow over his door and the skill to use it. Until reliable repeating weapons came along the only real advantage the musket had over the longbow was that the musket took far less skill and training to operate. Only with the advent of the rifled musket and minie ball in the mid-19th Century was the musket competitive in range with the bow. In the Napoleonic Wars, Wellington sought to raise a unit of longbowmen so that he could have the superior rate of fire of the bows but found that the skills to make and use them simply no longer existed.
People now think of them as quaint, but from about the late 17th Century, the musket was an effective, reliable weapon and troops were relatively easily instructed in its use and in the skills and maneuvers necessary to bring musket fire and bayonets into contact with the enemy. The disadvantage of the muzzleloading flintlock musket was its slow rate of fire and poor reliability in wet conditions; “keep your powder dry” remains with us today because wet powder in the firing pan of a flintlock wouldn’t ignite. The phrase “flash in the pan” also remains with us and refers to the situation where the powder in the pan burns with a flash but doesn’t ignite the charge in the barrel. Even with its relatively complex firing scheme and slow rate of fire, the smoothbore flintlock musket was an effective infantry weapon with an accurate range out to 100 – 150 yards. With the advent of the percussion cap and the minie ball used in a rifled barrel, the infantry rifle was born though it continued to be called a musket or a rifled musket. The mid-19th Century infantryman with a musket could maintain a rate of fire of 3 aimed rounds per minute and the better rifled muskets of the day were accurate to 300 – 500 yards. By the time of the US Civil War the two most common rifled muskets were the US 1861 Springfield and the British P1853 Enfield in .58 caliber though many .69 caliber 1842 Springfield smoothbores were in service especially early in the war and in militia units called up to serve. The Austrian Lorenz .54 caliber percussion rifled musket saw considerable use in the Confederate Western armies. Many ’61 Springfields were converted to breechloading post-war, referred to as Trapdoor Springfields, and became the standard infantry weapon of the Indian Wars period, though many soldiers privately procured various repeating rifles. The quartermasters of the Civil War and Indian Wars period weren’t simply being traditionalists in their resistence to adopting repeating weapons. Even at the rate of fire of the modern rifled muskets of the Civil War, it was almost impossible to keep the troops supplied with ammunition. Over the last quarter of the 19th Century the various single-shot muzzle and breechloading rifles were supplanted by first bolt action magazine or clip fed rifles and then gas operated semiautomatic magazine fed rifles and finally the modern gas operated automatic rifles.
I have a Ruger Mini-14 that uses the same .223 (NATO 5.56mm) caliber ammunition as the AR platform weapons. I also have a reproduction P1853 .58 caliber Enefield rifle musket. I’ll guarantee you that you are one Helluva lot more likely to survive one round from the .223 than from the .58.
One of the most effective weapons in the battle of Breeds’ Hill was the RIFLED muzzle loading rifle. The best shots were designated the shooters, and those not quite as capable would re-load for them. Reloads were a little bit slower due to the nwcessity of forceing a round down a rifled barrel as opposed to a smoothbore, so it was usually two loaders for each shooter. Contemporary accounts told of many men who were amazed at the fact that the woodsman of both colonies with their Pennsylvania (not Kentucy)rifles could hit a 10″ plate ten times out of ten, offhand, at 100 yards.
Yes, the rifled musket had been around for some time and reached a high state of development with the American frontier rifles and with the rifles used by German Jager units. That said, it was never used as a massed infantry weapon because the requisite marksmanship to avail of its better accuracy took much training and practice and even in the hands of a skilled marksman the rifle was too slow to reload for infantry use. Skilled marksmen using rifles and fighting from ambush or acting as snipers were the bane of the British in The Revolution.
The advent of the minie “ball” made the rifled musket much easier to load but even so for infantry use the ball was quite soft and loose in the bore so that it could be reloaded more easily at the cost of reduced range and accuracy. Today, modern precisely sized minie balls are very difficult to seat and ram and after a few rounds the barrel becomes too fouled to reload and must be cleaned even when using today’s high quality powder. Fouling was a terrible problem in the CW, particularly for Confederates who often had powder of inconsistent quality due to the niter shortages in The South. Black powder hunters commonly use plastic sabots. Competition shooters seeking an accurate portrayal of Civil War shooting commonly make their own balls and cartridges. The re-enactors don’t have to worry about the difficulty of loading and firing other than to make an accurate impression of the movements because while they obviously couldn’t use balls, they aren’t allowed ramrods on the field either. The steel ramrod of a Springfield or Enfield is itself quite a deadly projectile.
I made myself practice until I could load and fire in “nine times,” the Gilham’s Tactics method common in The South early in the war. I eventually got to the three aimed rounds per minute training standard working peacefully at the range. Those guys could do it while marching and maneuvering under fire! But then, the CW soldier did little but train in marksmanship and maneuvers, usually twelve hours a day, every day but Sunday.
Very good summary.
About fifteen years ago there was an article in the Atlantic making the case that there were two motivations for the RKBA among the Founders. Some emphaisized the individual right of self-defense, in contrast to the feudal idea of an armed aristocracy and their knights ruling unamred serfs. Others emphasized the republican ideal of reliance upon a militia rather than a professional standing army. However, even republican philosophers such as John Locke admitted the individual right “to kill a man who points his sword at me and demands my purse.”
So, individual self-protection (e.g. handguns) — unanimous support. Militia participation (e.g. military style rifles) — some cared about this more than others. However, any weapon that is too terrible for private ownership is also too terrible for use in domestic law enforcement. With nuclear weapons, giving an advantage to the military has become a necessary evil — therefore we forbid the army from participating in domestic law enforcement.
The goverment should fear the people. Our heritage. Common sense but not stated often enough.
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
In the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
There they are. I was sworn to the oath for the US Military so the Governor can go stuff himself!
Seriously though, we are bound to obey the orders of the President and those officers appointed over us but the trick is in the phrase according to regulations and the UCMJ. In there, you have the right to refuse an order you consider unlawful but you better be damn sure you are right and be able to prove it!
I think a soldier should be able to know what an unlawful order sounds like…if not he doesn’t need to be in the military…he is just another stooge!
Perhaps Lt. Calley should be consulted first.
He might have a nodding aquaintance with the finer points of law.
About what weapon to own: I STRONGLY suggest a civilian should invest in a 7.62 NATO, not in 5.56. The “older” round is far better suited for marksmanship and even general hunting whereas 5.56 isn’t even legal for hunting in most states due to it’s lack of killing power.
On the 7.62 side an M14 or M1(A) springfield are good choices. I have a G3 clone myself.
If you *must* go with 5.56 I strongly suggest something like a mini-14 and NOT the horrifically designed AR15 rifle. A robarm xcr or something like that for a fancier/pricier weapon.
I too have an HK91 and hear that the PTR 91 clone is very good. I really believe that an intermediate round like the 6.5 Grendel or Remington .260 is the way the military should go.
A fifth grade teacher in Glen Head, NY, after listening to the magnificent President Barack Obama eloquently and tenderly discuss the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut where a crazed man armed with automatic assault weapons snuffed out the lives of 26 people, 20 of which were six and seven year old, I moderated a balanced class discussion about the evil of firearms.
When the class voted on the topic at hand, 21 of 22 children agreed to the need our enlightened President Barack Obama to sign an executive order that sets in place a comprehensive gun control plan.
Incidentally, the one child, a male, who many members of the class rightly called a racist for disagreeing with the majority and opposing Obama, I sent for his own safety to the principal’s office.
She took it one step further. To help re-orient his thinking, the lad was given a week’s detention. The male actually quoted his father that the great one, President Obama, is “making war on the second amendment.”
I was flabbergasted that any child would question our great President.
How does a child by fourth grade lose his ability to think critically? Naturally, I’ll call him, Todd, bad parenting is partly to blame. At any rate, Todd, of course, was sent to the school psychologist who, after a thorough, intense, one hour session where the child was forbidden to disagree, it was decided that Todd has been brainwashed by his parents whose father, Todd said, took him to the rifle range from time to time and let him fire the father’s 38 revolver.
Which prompted me to do some detective work.
The Principal and I found in Todd’s file a note from his third grade teacher that Todd had included a cap gun on a holiday list of toys he wanted “for Christmas”.
The realization hit both of us simultaneously as we stared at the student’s private papers. The President’s comprehensive gun control plan must paint a much wider sloth of prohibitions than the President may be planning.
Cap guns must be kept out of the hands of children. Toys that look like guns should be included. Water pistols must be regulated. Plus, we’re also suggesting that any mention of guns in history books should be eliminated, even when the subject is the second world war. Guns didn’t win WWII. People did.
I have written to my Congressman about my deep concerns in this area, and he has assured me our points of view, which he assured me are in full congruence with the President’s, will be taken up seriously by the next congress.
One day it is my most fervent hope that we not only outlaw all gun like objects including their pictures, but also take it a step further; making it illegal for children to play, “war” while encouraging fathers who’ve served in the armed forces of the Untied Stated to burn their uniforms and never mention, as the good senator John Kerry describes it, “the mayhem, murder, carnage and war crimes they likely committed in the name of service to our aggressive, land seeking, oil seeking nation.
As a footnote to my comment, let me add that I naturally notified child protective services about Todd, whose values obviously have been seriously damaged by his father, and I suggested the boy child immediately be removed from his deleterious environment and sent to a foster home where said male will receive the kinds of teachings that our President espouses for his own children.
If each of us teachers do our part to redress the constitution starting with the second amendment, the world will be a better place.
Unfortunately, this is entirely consistent with the thinking of the majority of teachers I’ve known. Certainly not all, but the majority.
“Todd” should be referred for castration, since his masculinity is definitely creating severe mental deviation even at this early stage, and will progress to unmanageable proportions if left to develop further.
He should be made an example for the others in this school that would speak irreverently about Our Honorable President.
Maybe you’ll get “Teacher of the Year”.
Erica, you forgot to add “/s” at the bottom of your satiric comment. There is a clear danger that some people may take you seriously.
It’s late. I’m tired. This was a joke but a bad one. I read it with increasing trepidation.
I have intentionally waited a bit to see if ANYBODY on here gets the facts of law and the constitution straight. NOPE! Not yet!
In the popular quoted 2008 supreme court decision the the Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with **service in a militia**, AND to use that weapon for **TRADITIONALLY** lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. As such it renders these facts:
1. Militia’s remain as ‘organized’ militia’s constitutionally granted to the states.
2. Extending ‘beyond’ malitia’s individual are constitutionaly granted the right to bear arms with condition(s) of use.
(a) AND to use that weapon for **TRADITIONALLY** lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The supreme court has not held that military or military ‘type’ weapons of war are to be the types of weapons granted to the individual. In fact, the supreme court precisely addrssed that issue by granting ONLY to the states ‘organized’ militia’s those weapons of war. Furthermore, the supreme court granted beyond the weapons of the states organized militia’s the constitutionally protected right of individuals outside the service of organized malitia’s to bear arms within the **TRADITIONAL** lawful purposes such as self-defense ‘within ones home’ and obviously hunting and sports shooting.
…and people still think the Supremes aren’t on a leash? We don’t have to eait for the lefties to take it over, folks.
Constitutional construction. ‘plain meaning’ rule.
see also, ‘Founders unconstitutional laws.’
With all due respect sir, it makes little difference what your personal opinions are regarding the supreme court. The constitution grants to the federal supreme court the position of final arbitor in all matters of constitutional dispute in our juris prudence systems.
I bet if you were anticipating the next two or three Justices being appointed by President Romney and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate you wouldn’t find the USSC to be nearly so powerful. And, you know, there is the issue of the SC’s budget, its facilities, its size, and the ability of the Congress to pass legislation to specifically address decisions of the SC. And then there is the ultimate authority, the authority to enforce. I used to have a sign over my desk that said, “When The Enemy is in Range, So Are You.” Lefty punks never seem to comprehend what the other guy might do with powers and tools.
First Mr. Chance I don’t happen to be some “lefty punk’ as you’re so often prone to judge. I have been a registered republican since 1954. Last I checked, I found no constitutional references of authority granted to any Art Chance as being the abitor of any law or the constitution much less the enforcer of such. If you’re a ‘real’ constitutionalist american, may I suggest you learn how to use the granted powers of the individual citizen and use your voting right along with the right to petition.
BS, you’re a troll.
Wait so Art Chance’s position is that the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to rule on the precise legal meaning of the constitution?
A. Chance, you are correct, the left knows not what a Pandora’s Box they are planning. This whole mess may go sideways. Sailors have a saying, “As goes the mizzen so goes the main.” In order to effective end the second amendment and seize weapons it will entail gutting much of the bill of rights. I fear for my country.
You, lke all stupid sheep, don’t get it:
THEY ALL WORK FOR US!
None of them have any authority except that which we grant them. When they take more, that’s usurpation. Treason. Tyranny.
Nothing is settled until it is settled; thus the second amendment.
Lexington and Concord was about confiscation of arms. Not muskets.. arms, including cannon, gunpowder, and shot.
In Europe, the right to bear arms was given only to gentry and noblemen, because they were the rulers. In America, We, the People ARE the rulers, therefore, we have the right to bear any arms we please, as authority comes from us.
None of this would be necessary if the States hadn’t been bribed into subservience by “revenue sharing”.
Perhaps we should revolt against them, first, for betraying our trust. Once they let Senators be elected by popular vote, States became mere vassals of an overweening Federal government.
Or are we to follow seemingly lawful commands given by unlawful tyrants? That road always leads to Hitler and Caligula.
Begone, troll scum. If you ever were a Republcan, please leave. You’re the problem, not the solution.
“THEY ALL WORK FOR US!”
1. The supreme court works and is only accountable on behalf of the constitution and its amendment.
2. The congress works on behalf of the districts that elect them and govern national affairs according to a well designed concpet of the constitution that mandates governing the many by compromise. Otherwise the national affiars would be governed by blazing guns.
3. The executive branch is managed by a president with certain independent authorities, elected by the people of the many states districts and an electoral college as mandated by the constitution.
The ‘people’ are constitutionally granted a ‘VOICE’ in government through their elected representatives, by petition and referendum.
I know you would have gotten it correct had your brain not been occupied constructing the last line of your commenting.
Zeke What part of “…by thje people, for the people, and of the people” do you not understand?
Exactly how in response to this:
“THEY ALL WORK FOR US!”
Did you think typing three tautologies was any meaningful response?
They do work for us, you have very crudely reported three ways they works us. The people are the only source of legitimacy the government can have, and if we don’t like what they do we get rid of them.
You are flat wrong. The only implication that can be drawn from Miller, for example, is that the court has ruled that the 2ns amendment protects the private ownership of military weaponry, generically.
Also, this is the legal definition of the militia:
“(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, 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.
(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.”
And you’d have a real hard time arguing that since the “militia” clause explains a reason why the private ownership of arms is protected from government interference, without limiting that protection to members of the militia, the effect of the amendment to secure the ownership of military arms to all adults in good standing, with only due process of law authorizing that protection being slighted, i.e., crazies, deficients, and criminals only.
Now Tom! I know you must be some high priced attorney lobbyist but may I respectfully suggest — you’re wrong!
Beyond much more than this quote you make, “…citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” you offer up nothing but personal opinion.
The Dick Act [of 1903] divided the class of able-bodied male citizens
between 18 and 45 into an “organized militia” to be known as the National
Guard of the several states and the remainder of which was then
described as the “reserve militia” and which later statutes have
termed the “unorganized militia”. The statute created a table of
organization for the National Guard conforming to that of the Regular
Army, and provided that federal funds and Regular Army instructors
should be used to train its members.
“It is undisputed that Congress was acting pursuant to the Militia
clauses of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act…”
“In 1916 Congress decided to “federalize” the National Guard.
In addition to providing for greater federal control and federal
funding of the Guard, the statute required every guardsman to take
a dual oath – to support the Nation as well as the states and to
obey the President as well as the governor — and authorized the
President to draft members of the Guard into federal service. The
statute expressly provided that the Army of the United States should
include not only “the Regular Army” but also the “the National Guard
while in the service of the United States” …
“Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard
unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United
States…Upon being relieved from active duty in the military service
of the United States all individuals and units shall revert to their
National Guard status.”
Now, with regards to the conversations surrounding the ‘new era’ malitia’s i.e., the armed paramilitary groups that have been forming in the United States in recent years.
What is the tradition or history that the new militias are following in embracing the term ‘unorganized militia’? Answer — No tradition. Little history. The unorganized militia never ever had any kind of meaningful existence. It is simply a convenient statutory construct. The Anti-Federalists of the 1780′s who opposed a strong Federal government spoke of an armed militia indistinguishable from all the able bodied male citizenry. This militia was to be a great source of and training ground for republican virtue.
The Constitution watered down this concept when it gave the federal
government power over organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and
even more so, when it gave the federal government rather than the local
(state) authority control over the militia when federalized. However,
the 1792 Act, as much as allowed for by the Constitution, called for this
universal militia. But the states granted widespread exemptions and
eventually ended compulsory militia duty. Service in the militia became
voluntary and few served. In large part because of the labor strikes
of the late 1870′s, the militia was revived once again as the National
Guard. In the 20th Century, the National Guard has increasingly become
part of the armed forces of the United States.
Whatever virtues the National Guard has, it cannot claim the republican
virtue of an armed citizenry, because it is a small self-selected group.
However, at least the National Guardsman is the citizen-soldier acting in
defense of the republic and under elected civilian leadership both state
and federal.
As for the new militia, they have even less claim to be acting out of
some notion that they are serving republican virtue or that they somehow
represent the militia ideal of the Anti-Federalists or the earlier
republican theorists. They are, after all, small self-selected groups,
responsible to no one, following an agenda of their own choosing.
Section 109 allows states to have a ‘state defense force’ in
addition to a National Guard. Whether state defense forces are
‘militia’ or ‘troops’….
State defense forces were originally created by federal statute during
WWI and WWII to intervene in case of civil disturbance during a time when
the National Guard was called away to active duty. A number of states
currently have active state defense forces; all these groups are authorized
and regulated by state law and are under the political and military control
of the state. See Texas as an example.
Foregoing an even longer dissertation, your citations don’t hold water.
So let’s boil this down to basics, shall we?
You are saying that the militia function, which the Founding Fathers saw as a counterbalance to federal military might, is a function now fulfilled by the National Guard who’s primary allegiance, chain of command, and source of arms/training/uniforms/etc.., is the federal government?
Tell me you see just how circular that logic is…
Scottch, “I’m” telling you nothing! I presented what the defining points of the constitution and statutaory law are via the supreme court as it pertains to the subject and conversations at hand. And, I might add in all fairness that I only published a very small portion of the background of such settled law as it pertains to malitia’s.
By the way Scottch – have a very Merry Christmas!
Zeke, you are in fact using a lot of pixels to say nothing at all.
Essentially every male between 17 and 45 is subject to call up, and is a member of the unorganized militia. That they are privately armed as they choose and remain so without the interference of the government is the purpose of the 2nd amendment, and no SCOTUS opinion or statute exists to the contrary, in fact, all SCOTUS opinions affirm it is an individual right, and one which in fact protects military arms specifically, for example Miller.
I suppose you’ll next claim the 3rd amendment in fact authorizes the quartering of troops in private homes?
“The unorganized militia never ever had any kind of meaningful existence. It is simply a convenient statutory construct.”
To the contrary, the scholarship of Clayton Cramer, the irregulars–ironically, regularly–called into service in every conflict prior to 1900, these were were the unorganized militia. They were the people themselves.
You have presented nothing to the contrary.
” But the states granted widespread exemptions and
eventually ended compulsory militia duty. Service in the militia became
voluntary and few served.”
Which does not mean the militia stopped existing, since by definition, it is the people themselves, self selected and even–by tradition–electing their own officers when serving. I believe that was Abraham Lincoln’s first elected office, and long after you seem to be claiming the militia stopped existing…
“I’m telling you nothing”
Yeah, that IS about the size of it. Nice to know I get under your skin so easily – it’s almost like an early Christmas present!
Now, about that whole circular logic thing you got going…..
Actually; Miller was never truly decided. Miller was deceased by the time that the case went to the U.S. Court, and only the govt. side was present in the court. Apparently the lawyers for the defense didn’t bother to show, or were induced not to show by the corrupt FDR regieme. The govt arguement was that short barreled shotguns and rifles were not part of the usual armaments of the military. Nobody bothered to look in the museum at West Point, as it would have destroyed their point.
In posting such nonsense, you expose the very flaw in your thinking that renders your opinion void.
For starters, the SCOTUS did NOT “grant” us a damn thing!
What they DID do was recognize that there is a right to self defense (and hence arms to facilitate that self defense) that predates the Constitution. That right is based upon the concept of natural law.
The Second Amendment simply recognizes that right, and provides one – but not the only – reason the right to keep and bear arms by “the people” was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
As to the types of arms, the court had to figure out how to address precedent. In this case it was Miller vs US.
A brief review for those unfamiliar with the case, as it is important to understand how it was done and what the ramifications were.
Miller was a person of questionable repute who was arrested under the gun control act for possession of a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches – what the feds will routinely call a “sawed off shotgun”.
The shotgun in question, however, had not been chopped down. It had been manufactured with that barrel length at the factory years BEFORE that gun control law had been passed.
Consider that concept – companies were routinely manufacturing products that the federal government subsequently outlawed.
There were a lot of questionable actions on the part of the government, and ultimately Miller was killed before his case was reviewed by the court.
Sadly, it didn’t matter as the federal government wanted their test case that would validate their actions.
As it turns out, NO ONE showed up to argue on Miller’s behalf that the law was unconstitutional.
Only government lawyers showed up to argue in favor of the law.
What the court did was send the case back for further review at the lower court level. In their official response, the court noted that lacking any information that a short barreled shotgun was a militia or military type weapon, then they would consider it a firearm the government could regulate.
Since no one showed up to inform the court that short barreled shotguns had routinely been military arms, then the court was denied valuable information that would have swayed their opinion towards overturning that law.
The takeaway from this is simple – the court viewed military type arms as being the very weapons MOST protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Unfortunately, no one informed them of short barreled weapons used by the military…..
So, from a practical standpoint, if gun control activists can outlaw a militia weapon and remove them from common possession, then there is nothing to prevent them from later doing the same to non-military type weapons as under Miller vs US commercial hunting rifles are not “militia” type weapons and hence are unprotected.
Thus endeth the lesson…
“Thus endeth the lesson…” A lessen in what?
The ‘facts’ of the case are those rendered in the decision by the the supreme court.
Then you try waltzing into matters of constitutional and statutory settled points of defining malitia’s.
Clean your boots good before entering your house–they have a lot of that stinky stuff on them.
Actually Zeke, the only excrement stinking up the place at the moment is your assertion, out of many, that the courts “grant” a right.
And yes, myself and several others are currently schooling you at the moment.
May I be allowed to clearify?
The high court or any court for that matter, grants to the parties before it a constitutional statutory decision (a bit more complex in terms of remedy/relief precepts). A decision that may in fact implicate a much broader audience. Their decisions are to reflect upon the constitutional ‘grant’ of various authorities and rights. Therefore, the court is enforcing or re-enforcing ‘grants’ of the constitution and its amendements.
See, its not such a stinky premise afterall!
Zeke, you enjoyable dolt.
“May I be allowed to clearify?”
You may, I doubt you are able.
The Court granting a decisions or a court granting relief as with an injunction has nothing to do with it “granting” rights, whatever implications it has.
Rights by definition pre-date the constitution, inhere to human nature, and are either recognized or not in the actions of government.
You are arguing the axioms of our society are falsehoods, while presenting alternative axioms which we know in history to lead to the most abject disaster. Good luck with that.
@ Zeke,
No, you are not “clarifying” anything – you are trying to change the impression of what you clearly stated, but only after the fact when you were called on it.
You are simply being disingenuous now.
Okay, since you and your sidekicks are “schooling” me lets see just how smart you are as a constitutionalist and legal-beagle.
Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good. On the other hand, an amendment such as the Second Amendment can be further ammended and even repealed as Article 18 was done by Article 27.
Acts of gun violence inflaming the conscience of a constitutional required majority in the states and the Second Amendment could be left found only in history books! So all you people who think you know the constitution so well and that its some absolute grant of God had better get far more educated pretty quick and learn how to compromise when and if needed!
“Getting off of the extensive sidetrack we’ve gone off on, and trying to get back to the issues at hand…..”
Since you like to “boil things down to basics” and Mr. Perkins likes to be the “final” arbitor of the constitution and its amendments, heres the bottom line of the issues at hand. In full disclosure, it was Mr. Perkins who inadvertantly provided the finality to the bottomline basics.
Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good. On the other hand, an amendment such as the Second Amendment can be further ammended and even **repealed** as Article 18 was done by Article 27.
Acts of gun violence inflaming the conscience of a constitutionally required majority in the states and the Second Amendment could be left found only in history books! So all you people who think you know the constitution so well and think its some absolute grant of God had better get far more educated pretty quick and learn how to compromise when and if needed!
By the way! Thanks Mr. Tom Perkins.
@ Zeke,
I honestly had moved on when you apparently felt the need to repeat this comment later in this conversation. Apparently you thought you had hit on a winning response, when in fact you weren’t even on my radar.
Anyway, my full response is in comment #64 below for the curious.
Nice work Zeke.
I would simply add that the functional reasons for the creation of the National Guard and unorganized militia can be discovered with a bit of research, and come down very simply to the previous militia system simply not functioning.
People didn’t want to buy the military grade weapons, and wanted to drill with the even less. Instead of providing a ready reserve for military service, the militia was providing a few sinecures at State level, and a dangerous illusion of reserves at the federal level.
As for the unorganized militia, it provides a legal fiction – people are not being “drafted”, they are just being “called into federal service” from their “mandatory” militia service. Nothing else is expected of the unorganized – not weapon ownership, not training, not anything. That doesn’t mean they cannot own weapons, though it may mean they cannot engage in certain types of training, it just means no such readiness is expected of them.
RE; Zeke@40.
Serious troll alert, major mis-statements of fact and law.
Don’t feed the troll!
Amen, Bob. I have been posting, on various websites, for the better part of a year, that the Second Amendment is about MILITIA weapons. As such the military pattern, semi-automatic weapons, the left wants to ban, are precisely the weapons that amendment protects for ownership by “we the People”. Glad to finally hear someone else say the same thing.
It’s none of anyone’s GD business what I own or have.. There is no discussion, none.
People have what is available.. what they can manufacture, modify, extend, improve.
The same applies to weaponry as it does for any tool.
I bet if there was a real movement to assemble and organize ‘militias’ state by state, region by region, the feds would declare these groups terrorists and take action.. What this retard regime does not realize is that most of the military personnel are patriots and would not fire upon the citizenry to disarm them.
Perhaps true enough on a good day but what is straight intel re troops from places like Russia, Pakistan, and etc. here supposedly for training. Could they be used for leadership decapitation missions? Also seems like I heard something re Gays openly serving may have resulted in increased retirement and separation rates of NCO.
Let us all remember that the President is a person that works for the citizens with permission of citizens only. He is not a dictator, but it looks like he wants to be the dictator, and take control. He does not get his way. Congress does not have to do as he says, the President has to compromise. The President does not get to tell anybody what to do. He does not get to say this is the deal I want. Congress is by Article II US Constitution in charge of the budget only! Aqueous any part of the 2nd Amendment, it is lose of freedom and the Constitution.
We got here because the government keeps putting citizens and children into Killing Zones marked GUN FREE!
In the 2010 Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental personal — as opposed to a “collective” — right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments. The case was about a handgun that Dick Heller wanted to keep in his home in Washington, D.C. He tried to register it with the city, but was turned down. In spite of a longstanding law which bans all handguns in the city, Washington, D.C. has been labeled as the “murder capital of the United States” due to an endless string of handgun murders. Heller lives in a high crime area, and argued that he had a Second Amendment right to have a gun in his home for self-defense. The Supreme Court agreed.
ALL federal supreme court decisions have ‘broad’ constitutional implications and is not limitied to only a particular case in standing before their body. For example, the decision in the Heller case was NOT directed to the exclusion of our society at large, granting only Mr. Heller the benefit of their decision.
Case law is routinely used to settle standing disputes before the court. I’m sure you will find that intent of the 2008 and other previous decisions formulating case law was in large part the basis of the Heller decision.
So, essentially, The Constitution means whatever you want it to mean, whenever you want it to mean it.
Gotchya.
No sir, not at all! It doesn’t mean what “I” deem it to mean. It means what the constitutional supreme court says it means.
So you think all that fuss in 1776 was so we could be ruled by a few “special” people in robes, and what they finally decide is the last word?
Boy, you really don’t get ANY of it, do you?
Actually, I guess you don’t do much thinkin’ at all!
No, they have no more power to claim to the sun rises in the west.
We are not ruled by a few people in robes.
What they finally decide does not have to be the last word.
That is a convenient pretense of people who despise that the Founders created a Supreme Court and left us under the Rule of Law rather than subject to the tyranny of Congress or the President, but that is all that is – a pretense.
The Constitution is quite clear:
For a law to exist it must first by passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. Every single member of both Houses gets to make a personal decision as to whether or not a particular law would be Constitutional.
That law must then be approved by the President. If he finds the law to be defective Constitutionally he can reject it.
In that case, a 2/3rds supermajority of both Houses of Congress is then required to accept the Constitutionality of the law.
Even then, if a citizen finds the Constitutional status of the law to be suspect he may challenge it in court. That challenge must eventually be resolved. Who should get to resolve it? The Legislature that passed it? The Executive that approved it? No, the Judiciary, which can only act when a citizen brings such a challenge.
But even then it does not end!
The Congress or the several States may act to amend the Constitution itself to make something Constitutional even if the Supreme Court has already declared it to be unconstitutional. They have done this with the citizenship of slaves, former slaves, and their descendents, and they have done with the non-proportional income tax.
So not only do multiple people have to judge something Constitutional before it even gets to the Supreme Court, even if the Supreme Court disagrees with all of those other people in two other branches of government, it is still possible to change the Constitution itself and render that decision moot.
Now it is well established that proglodytes and miscellaneous Marxists are utterly baffled and dismayed by the complex interactions of this 2-1/2 century old document and the government it establishes, but it is quite disturbing to see similar ignorance displayed by people who claim to be conservatives that support the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.
The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms – what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?
The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.
Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.
In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*
It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.
All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.
Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.
Since most people today have NOT been in the military, let me educate the ignorant:
A fully automatic weapon (or a weapon with select mode auto) is more often than not an ineffective waste of ammunition. The exceptions being for suppressing fire, etc. A trained soldier can learn to let off 2,3,4 rounds while in select auto mode.. however an untrained individual will find a full auto weapon almost impossible to maintain a directed small field of impact, i.e. people he is intent on killing. And on and on.. So if I had the choice of a nut job with a full auto m16 style weapon or a single fire (semi-automatic) weapon, I’d give him the full auto and let him deplete his ammo supply in one hell of a hurry and NOT where his initial aim point was at. My point here is not to advocate a damn thing, I pray the nuts jobs NEVER get control of a weapon of any kind, they need to be institutionalized. However this idiot retarded moronic discussion from the left of ‘why do you need a gun that SPRAYS bullets – Fienstein?’.. is revealing of the left’s massive ignorance of the subject. Retards like Feintstein and her ilk should STFU. Or, go ahead politician, open you big dumb a$$ mouth and show the world what a retarded idiot you are.
There are no words to discuss rifle marksmanship, only a literal handful of overlapping terms. The 2nd Amendment made perfect sense at the time as it rested on living memory. The memory has vanished. Current memory is flawed. There were no rifles outside of frontier areas, none in New England, or north of Philadelphia or in Britain or France. They were expensive and made sense only on the frontier. The Colonial super-rifle came out of a century of firearms freedom. It was a radical technical departure. Gen. Washington asked Congress in June 1775 to form a company of rustics to go to the troubled siege of Boston, bringing their personal rifles with them. The General was rifle-proficient and knew what he was doing. The Siege was lost, but it caused Hessians to have to be hired and resulted in winning Saratoga and collapsing the Southern Front because of Kings Mountain and The Cowpens. In the painting of the surrender at Yorktown, the largest figure is standing furthest downstage, so to speak. He is old, with white hair and wearing buckskin. People can identify him nowadays, but not why he was so featured. Contemporaries of the 2nd Amendment could report why. Not even the US Army recalls why those particular rustics were asked for to form the first unit of the US Army. They knew then that with rifle skills in the population, an invader was doomed; therefore we can avoid foreign entanglements such as for allies. The shape of the learning curve is unknown to this day.
SOLUTION FOR SCHOOL KILLINGS
–Provide an inexpensive (Daisy) spring-air .177 pellet target pistol to each teacher’s lounge, with a pellet trap so they can set up a safe 5-10 meter range.
–When a teacher can demonstrate quick first-shot hitting of a head-sized target at distances found in a school building, their Concealed Carry permit is annotated to allow carry in school buildings when state law allows.
–Homeland Security or someone provides a reward of an amount equal to the school principal’s annual salary for stopping a school mass murderer. Explaining old Mrs. Smithers pulling a piece from under her apron and drilling enraged, murder-screaming Timmy, suited up as a school mass murderer and wielding a shotgun or rifle would be easier than coping with anything Timmy does if Mrs. Smithers were unable to bring her firearm to the cafeteria.
Hollywood teaches by presenting the firearm as a major prop in the plot before the firearms felony occurs and the audience learns “after which therefore because of.” Hollywood teaches that an Assault Rifle works like a death ray, despite the laws of physics. All Americans are poisoned by this accidental teaching.
I think you are a crazy liberal. If you stop children from being children (male and female) then you are destroying our moral fiber. Thank God my parents let my brother play “Army Men” and my mom let me play with Barbies. I am glad I know how to defend my self if someone breaks into my home or attacks me physically. I learned how to shoot from my grandfather and he knew what was going on. Not now. You want to turn children into mindless “DRONES” and Indoctrinate our young to think that everything is wonderful in this world. IT IS NOT!! If you try to change the American History, it won’t work. Kids are smart and they know that they can’t be brainwashed by someone like you who want to change how it really is. MAN UP!! You can’t change the world to how you want it to be. Realize that people need to defend themselves and step up to know what Freedom is and the 2nd Amendment means.
Either your reading comprehension is seriously flawed, or your comment was misplaced.
Whatever; The reasoning is flawed to boot.
I believe he’s responding to your comment contained under the post by Erica@# 39.
My bad; Kids like Chris make the Deans List these days.
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
Beautiful! Thanks.
Gun threads seem to get vociferous in a hurry. Sometimes it sounds =that if 51% of the people have voted a way the 49% don’t like, then it is right and proper that the 49% not only arm themselves to the teeth, but attack the tyranny.
Too much rapid firing makes for overheated barrels. Hmmmm.
IMHO, we are considering several, extremely different situations, with widely disparate requirements. It is quite clear that a sizable minority of Americans hate the Second Amendment. They simply do not want any civilian to have access to a modern weapon. I place Mr. Owens’ recommended equipment and training at the opposite end of the debate. A person of his stated qualifications would exceed the abilities of most police and even military units. How many people have 4 to 7, 30 shot magazines, in a bandolier, who can hit a 400 yd target, have a standing inventory of 1,000 rounds of full-metal jacket (FMJ) ammunition and a three day survival food stock? Would such a person be present in the sites of the slaughters: schools, shopping malls, or movies? What could we reasonably expect of a school faculty/ staff, with an acceptable level of training, and at what cost? Mr. Owens specifies the requirements of a private military, a highly skilled militia. It may have merit, may be Constitutional, but does not address a realistic defense against the madmen from which we have grievously suffered.
I read of diametrically opposite “facts” from law enforcement experts who contend with threats from insane people. Some say there is no way to ID such unstable people; others state firmly that the unhinged dangerous people are always identifiable, prior to the attack. I judge that means and methods which pursue this defense may be much more fruitful than a militia formation. And obviously there should be checks and balances against unwarranted curtailment of freedom.
We consider two separate problems. Who is the enemy? A nut? Or a dictatorial government?
Have ya’ll noticed something about the Newtown killer? The young man was a vegan (a strict vegetarian) and I’m sure unreported research has learned he held all the common liberal views, as well as a registered Democrat who did vote for Obama in the recent election. We need a news organization to report the facts.
What the nation needs is liberal Democrat control, not gun control, and the worst of things is when liberal Democrats control the guns.
The killer was a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in this election, as well as being a liberal and a vegan. My apologies for not proofreading better.
Ok, I have to admit I haven’t seen this particular theory. Is this actual information that somebody has reported, or are you just speculating wildly? His mum was a survivalist – unlikely to be a left-leaning household, I suggest.
This same claim was made about the guy who did the colorado shooting – and it was also wrong then.
Rush on Friday’s show (12-21-12) said a couple of people (that he’s seen reported) were quite definite the killer was a full vegan (not just vegetarian) and often said he could not bear the cruel harm to animals that our mainstream diets must cause. He was passionate against cruelty to animals.
Rush said only one person has claimed the mother was a survivalist and Rush said there’s no other evidence or corroboration displayed so far. It may be more likely the mother remarked to friends that the country is going to hell in a handbasket and she wished she could take care of herself when the bad times come. We know the mother did not belong to a Tea party, and her collection of firearms and ammo was small and not remarkable.
The liberal registered Democrat is inferred or extrapolated from the evidence above (vegan claiming others are cruel to animals) and also from the evidence not reported by the hoards of national progressive gun-banning media that have been feverishly pushing and spinning this story. Do you think the left’s reporters haven’t discovered from the local Newtown Democrat organizers and politicos whether the killer was a Republican conservative or a Democrat liberal? If the killer were a mentally-ill Republican, a teaparty conservative, or even if he had no politics at all, they would have told us so often and loudly.
And no. Conservative reporters do not have access to the same info as the media wing of the Demo party. It will be more difficult to get public proof of the politics and philosophies this person held. The media has shown no more interest in the Killer’s politics than the White House has shown in what caused Americans to die in Benghazi.
In his probable mental illness or moral/intellectual deficiency the killer demonstrated what statist progressives will always do when the time comes for them to either take over or be defeated and constrained.
Ah. That explains it. You’re getting your information from limbaugh.
Here’s a thought – go do your own searches. Find out for yourself. Now – a few things …
(a) this is what the shooter’s mum’s boyfriend from 5 years ago actually said:
““He was clearly troubled. He did have issues. He was not violent in any way,” Hanoman said. “He was a vegan because he didn’t want to hurt animals.”"
I think limbaugh overstated things a wee bit, and at the very least chose to ignore the context. Nothing about “mainstream diets” in there. Nothing about “passionate”. Moving on …
(b) “Rush said only one person has claimed the mother was a survivalist”
Not true. The mum’s sister in law has spoken at length about this, and it was far more than “remarking to friends that the country is going to hell in a handbasket”. Her friends have also referred to her “prepping” and fondness for her guns.
(c) “her collection of firearms and ammo was small and not remarkable.”
According to the police she had 5 guns, including an AR-15. Not remarkable?
(d) “The liberal registered Democrat is inferred or extrapolated from the evidence above (vegan claiming others are cruel to animals)”
Hmm. I’m not sure that “evidence” means what you think it does. Rush’s speculative extrapolations are not evidence. Your imaginative conspiracies about what the democrats MUST know are not evidence. An example of “evidence” would be something like actual testimony from somebody who knew the kid. Maybe check the electoral rolls – actually CHECK before claiming that somebody is a registered member of a political party. You’re currently at the level of “making stuff up”.
(e) “Conservative reporters do not have access to the same info as the media wing of the Demo party”
Just how powerful do you think this “Demo party” is? Do they super powers? The ability to prevent people from finding information on the public record? To silence friends and neighbours? Sheesh … get a grip.
Now, your conclusion is just epic:
“In his probable mental illness or moral/intellectual deficiency the killer demonstrated what statist progressives will always do when the time comes for them to either take over or be defeated and constrained.”
Uh-huh. So in your world, 2 + 2 = 11.5, therefore liberals are all just like hitler. Because rush said so.
Don’t think for a second that all survivalist are by nature conservative. Remember the Unabomber? Remember the Y2K believers? Many libs and lefties in that crowd.
“Remember the Unabomber?”
Ouch. That smarts.
Go and read something about the unabomber. Maybe read his manifesto, and THEN try to claim that he had anything to do with “the left”.
He wasn’t particularly subtle about his hatred for socialism and liberals.
I completely applaud the pro-gun lobby for taking this approach. You should totally bet the farm on rolling back changes that prevent citizens from buying machine guns. Demand private ownership of RPGs, and grenades. Go for it.
*puts popcorn in microwave*
Better yet, we should just find and extirpate you and your friends and associates.
Oh, that’s harsh. Find and kill me, sure – but my friends and associates? I think that’s going a bit far.
I really can’t think of much I care less about than what lefty punks think.
Going to stick your head in there along with the popcorn?
**Tom Perkins**
You seemed to have missed a couple critical points!
I’ve limited my comments on this subject matter to only two things.
1. Shining some light on the constitutional and statuatory definitions of malitia’s.
2. Shining some light around a concept that certain of weapon types and accessories may not serve any ‘legitmate need’ for the average non military or states malitia’s.
I have never once suggested that the constitutions second amendment be disposed of or that average citizens should be denied the right to bear arms. My personal position is quite the contrary! I happen to believe that as technology advances in the arena of military weaponry, the constitution and second amendment allows for statutory limitations of the ‘types’ of weapons allowed the general non military, non states malitia’s public. it is done routinely except for some small arms for which the government does not engage for very precise reasons that have nothing to do with the constitutions second amendment, albeit quite statutorily illegal.
I thought at first you were just typoing miltia, until I looked it up…
Noun
malitia (genitive malitiae); f, first declension
a bad quality; badness, wicked
Pretty sneaky, that…
Zeke…by your version of evolving technology, we need to redefine all of our rights every so many years. Now that makes a lot of sense. Lets start with abortion, although not constitutionally authorized by strict language…we can now see that in fact the fetus/glob of cells is in fact a human being. So does abortion now become murder or does the right to privacy still maintain superior standing? You cannot have it both ways.
“1. Shining some light on the constitutional and statuatory definitions of malitia’s.”
Except you haven’t done it.
“2. Shining some light around a concept that certain of weapon types and accessories may not serve any ‘legitmate need’ for the average non military or states malitia’s.”
Haven’t done that either.
The clear instruction to the lower court to rehear Miller implies that the decision rested on whether or not short barreled shotguns were in use by the military, and that if they were so, then their possession was protected from government interference by the constitution. This necessarily implies the private ownership of military equipment is protected by the constitution generally. That’s all it says and it says nothing else. In contrast, the NFA is very much unconstitutional. It is obfuscatory, not revelatory, to cite laws which conflict with the amendment.
The statutory law currently governing the militia says every citizen/national/immigrant not in the organized militia who is male between 17 and 45 is in the unorganized militia. Full stop, that’s the legal definition of the unorganized, militia. It is a definition very much in keeping with the militia as it has been thought of since prior to the revolution, the people themselves.
This does not change in any way if some members of the unorganized militia decide to be more organized than not, as the AWRM.org website shows.
Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good. On the other hand, relative to one of our previous discussions, an amendment such as the Second Amendment can be further ammended and even repealed as you cited Article 18 being repealed.
Acts of gun violence inflaming the conscience of a constitutional required majority in the states and the Second Amendment could be left found only in history books! So all you people who think you know the constitution so well and that its some absolute grant of God had better get far more educated pretty quick and learn how to compromise when and if needed!
“the constitution and second amendment allows for statutory limitations of the ‘types’ of weapons allowed the general non military, non states malitia’s public.”
Which you are very wrong about. It no more allows for that than the 1st amendment applies lesser protection to the internet than for the printed word, or more protection for newspapers than for bloggers.
**REGULATED** Categories of firearms! Ever hear of that?
According to most on here, including yourself, there would be no constitutional grant to any government department or agency to regulate firearms. By the mere fact that firearms can be constitutionally regulated by congress and enforced by a government department and or agency, so can the class types of weapons for sale to the general public be regulated without disturbing the second amendment.
Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good. On the other hand, relative to one of our previous discussions, an amendment such as the Second Amendment can be further ammended and even repealed as you cited Article 18 being repealed.
Acts of gun violence inflaming the conscience of a constitutional required majority in the states and the Second Amendment could be left found only in history books! So all you people who think you know the constitution so well and that its some absolute grant of God had better get far more educated pretty quick and learn how to compromise when and if needed!
**Sam**
Your analysis is correct! However, I would remind you of one ‘potential’ flaw in your presentation.
No part of the constitution can be repealed by the federal congress, a president, the Supreme Court or any states governments or a states convention. However, it can be amended which may necessitate the repeal of some statutory
law(s). In any circumstance of event(s) leading to such an amemdment, it comes full circle back to the supreme court to cure/settle if and when challenged. Few things are not constitutionally challenged in these times!
Otherewise, some nice writing!
“No part of the constitution can be repealed by the federal congress, a president, the Supreme Court or any states governments or a states convention. However, it can be amended which may necessitate the repeal of some statutory
law(s).”
Zeke, you are hopeless. You’ve said one abjectly untrue thing just now, naming several entities that you feel cannot repeal any part of the constitution, when of course they can play a role in just that process and have already. The Prohibition of alcohol was a part of the institution which was repealed by an amendment declaring it to be repealed. If that amendment repealing Prohibition were itself solely repealed, we’d have the idiocy of alcohol Prohibition full force again, because the repeal amendment was not written to strike the prohibition amendment from the document, but to make it null and void. If what you mean to say is those entities cannot on their own or in that particular combination effect a repeal, you are correct…
…But you have argued the Supreme Court by itself in it’s decision “grants” right, hence you are claiming for the Court the power to repeal any part of the Constitution it chooses to decide is null and void in a case before it.
If you are in fact able to think clearly, then sir, you cannot write so.
Tom
Legal definitions and operations of amending: adjust, alter, convert, edit, emend, fix, meliorate, modify, reconsider, rectify, reform, rehabilitate, remedy, renew, renovate, repair, resolve, restore, revise, supplement.
The Twenty-first amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a previous Amendment, and for being the only one to have been ratified by the method of the state ratifying convention.
If you can provide some instance where the U.S. Constitution has been ‘replealed’ other than in the case of an amemendment being repealed, I’d sure like to see it. We ‘amend’ the constitution under the authority of Article 5. and can by a single precedent, ‘repeal amendments’ to the constitution.
Also, what does, in the event of an amendment, get repealed are those ‘statutory laws’ that are made null and void.
Amazingly, I was able to reply to you with the need for any childish insults.
Checking . . . and indeed.
That is why I didn’t use the word “repealed” for affecting the Constitution, only “amended”.
Laws can be repealed, the Constitution is either overthrown or amended.
The sole outlier with Prohibition is just that – an outlier – a rare case of where one Amendment explicitly negated a previous Amendment, but even then was done by the Amendment process.
My wife’s comment:
“A teachers’ certificate should include a firearms proficiency requirement.”
Schools are gun-free zones; the government has taken away my son’s right to defend himself. (Other than being under 18, my son has taken the requisite training course and disposition to qualify for a concealed carry permit.) Therefore, having denied my son’s right to defend himself, the State (in this case, the teacher) assumes the responsibility for defending my son.
(Yes, I know the State indemnifies itself in the event that it fails to defend my son, but that’s another topic.)
Every Marine graduating boot camp must engage targets at 500 meters with an iron-sighted M-16. There are many of us veterans that can still do so. We carried every day, for days, on patrol, at least as many rounds, chow, and as Mr. Owens suggest.
Inform yourself, lest you continue to appear clueless.
Time for some state Gov’s and legislatures to man up….pass a law under their state consitutions and the Federal Constiution and authorized the formation of State Guard Units at the City, Town, Village, County Level. Any citizen or group of citizens can post notice of intent to form a State Guard Unit…the state can require that all citizens.. 16 and above, male or female, resident of the state may join the guard provided they procure the required basic equipment list (with three years to do so), take the required training, and present themselves for training as needed to support the unit. Units may be as small as 25 personnel to be called upon for service as a unit…units below that size may be called upon to provide individuals for duty or to flush out other units…specialized units focusing in on specific issues…fire, medical, engineering, etc are also encouraged but the primary duty of the units is defense of thier local area…
History has taught us not to put (our) total faith in government(s). Unfortunately, liberals have little common sense but vast amounts of pro government fervor based on their religious-like feelings for government dependence. Indeed, government is their God substitute.
Only their government-god is therefore, entitled to have armaments.
Loved the discussion of the Miller and Heller decisions, and the Dick Act vs the 10 USC 311 definitions of the unorganized militia. I think we can all agree that Heller recognizes the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, while Miller allows the Feds to prohibit weapons with no military utility. One thing I’m worried about is the next AWB being defended using the combination of Heller and Miller to say that semi-auto rifles aren’t militarily useful (semi-auto handguns might be a different story since the M-9 is the standard sidearm) and pointing towards the three round burst capability of the M-16A2 and M-4, and explaining that full auto M-16 equivalents are still available for individual ownership under the NFA. Anybody else worried about this?
“while Miller allows the Feds to prohibit weapons with no military utility”
No, it doesn’t make that decison, although it does imply that. Under such a ruling, the Hughes act, and 1968 and 1934 gun laws all become null and void.
Tom, you don’t think the gun grabbers would trade prohibiting semi-auto rifles (they call them assault rifles) for allowing post 1986 full autos? Given that the cost and bureaucracy would necessarily limit the numbers?
Gun Control explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY
The author, Bob Owens, implies that the Second Amendment is concerned about a civilian militia and nothing else. In the English language, one possible function of a comma is to represent the word “and”. I’ve always been taught that that is what the comma in the Amendment is there for: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I think the Amendment gives all citizens the right to keep and bear arms, not merely civilian militia.
I do agree with the author that the Founding Father were not even thinking of self-defense or hunting when they wrote this—they were thinking of a way to check the government if it ever became a tyranny. Thus civilians should be able to keep and bear at will the same firepower the government has.
Getting off of the extensive sidetrack we’ve gone off on, and trying to get back to the issues at hand…..
I’d suggest that in equipping a militia member, thought be given to what function they were intended to fulfill – namely the immediate preservation of life and property in the face of some danger. In past ages, that could be anything from pirates to indian massacres.
In modern times, I’m thinking anything from hurricanes to riots.
I’d suggest the individual be equipped for at least three days of independent activity before outside help arrived.
So, that being the case, I’d recommend the following:
If the militia is a state recognized entity, then there will be a uniform which will likely be suitable for the climate and include a decent pair of boots.
Uniform aside, I’d suggest a sleeping bag, shelter/tent, personal first aid kit, MRE’s for 3 days, water purification means, canteen (make that 2 canteens in very hot climates), matches/lighter, multi-function tool or pocketknife, camping dish and utensils, handi-wipes, compass, duct tape, fishing line, whistle, binoculars.
A pack to carry all that in.
Then you get to the actual hardware.
Start with a larger camp knife. Kabars are good along with a sheath and a built-in sharpening stone. Good for cutting small saplings and any number of other chores around camp.
As for a rifle, I’d suggest that an AR15 or M4 clone or M1/M1A would be preferable, any serviceable long gun will work – just try to keep it in a suitable caliber. By “suitable caliber” I mean something a state government could readily provide.
This means .223 or .308.
An alternative long gun on a budget would be a decent pump action 12 gauge, which again a state could provide ammo for.
Long guns should have a sling.
Rifles should have multiple magazines – 7 is a good number. This gives you one in the rifle and 6 in reserve. At 30 rounds per mag you have 420 rounds of ammo available. You can toss another 10 or 11 boxes of ammo in the backpack.
If you are still short of ammo at that point, we all have a more serious problem on our hands.
You need a bandoleer or ammo mag pouch to carry the mags in.
“Getting off of the extensive sidetrack we’ve gone off on, and trying to get back to the issues at hand…..”
Since you like to “boil things down to basics” and Mr. Perkins likes to be the “final” arbitor of the constitution and its amendments, heres the bottom line of the issues at hand. In full disclosure, it was Mr. Perkins who inadvertantly provided the finality to the bottomline basics.
Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good. On the other hand, an amendment such as the Second Amendment can be further ammended and even **repealed** as Article 18 was done by Article 27.
Acts of gun violence inflaming the conscience of a constitutionally required majority in the states and the Second Amendment could be left found only in history books! So all you people who think you know the constitution so well and think its some absolute grant of God had better get far more educated pretty quick and learn how to compromise when and if needed!
By the way! Thanks Mr. Tom Perkins.
Ah, Zeke is the troll that keeps on giving…..I make a comment pertinent to the actual subject of the article and you again come in trying to derail things. Oh well….
Yes, any part of the Constitution can be amended.
However, there are two things you are blithely dismissive of in making this suggestion.
First of all, at the very least you are now finally admitting that the 2nd Amendment IS a barrier to the federal government.
That government would like nothing better than to simply ignore that amendment until they can argue that is nothing but a dead letter – the problem they have is a sizable chunk of the people don’t feel like giving them that satisfaction and keep gumming up their plans.
The problem your side of the debate now has is that the government has been steadily trying to operate as if the 2nd Amendment didn’t exist – and instead has found themselves on an increasingly on a collision course with that amendment.
At some point, something has to give and if the federal government insists on ignoring that fact, I truly am concerned as to what will happen as its typical approach is one of might makes right. An over-reaction would be disastrous.
Second of all, when you read through the Bill of Rights, what you are reading in large part is a list of inherent natural rights a person has simply by virtue of being alive.
They have those rights whether they exercise them or not, and those rights are still inherent in them even if the government by force infringes on those rights. Those rights also don’t change because some leftist decides they are out of date – they are just as much inherent in the individual now as they were over 200 years ago.
So, understand when you prattle on about amending the Bill of Rights, you are arguing in favor of dismissively redefining what natural rights a person actually has – and by logic that can’t be done as all people have those rights for all eternity. Rights this government has been forced to acknowledge one way or the other for over two centuries now.
Also, keep in mind that the citizens as well as the governments of the various sovereign states insisted on the adoption of a Bill of Rights before they would agree to ratify the Constitution. That Bill of Rights is as inherent in the government as the separation of the three branches of government. Changing that would be as fundamental a change as would be eliminating the judicial branch would be – and just as bad an idea.
I certainly don’t trust your judgement regarding what rights a person has…..
Understand this if you understand nothing else in this world:
If you screw with the Bill of Rights, you will ultimately undermine the very legitimacy of the federal government as a result.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, as far as the congress enacting laws “for the common good” – per that old dead slave owning white guy named Thomas Jefferson, who had a little thing or two to do with setting up the government in the first place – congressional authority to enact any law for the “common good” had to be predicated on some power granted to them in the first place as all other powers remained with the states or the people.
So, the federal government could do “good” in maintaining a a secure border because the federal government had authority over a national military – but they were never really delegated the vast powers that the government has accrued to itself over the past 150 years or so to “put a chicken in every pot”.
If social and political life in the former United States continues on this trajectory, before long we’re going to find out if you credentialled lefty punks have actually been educated; I’m betting against you limp-d**ked little punks.
Ok, now that I’ve addressed the troll assigned to our happy little family, I’d like to add a couple more items to my list.
A cleaning kit for the specific firearms being carried, and toothbrush and toothpaste for the militiaman. Insect repellent ain’t a bad idea either depending on your locale.
Been giving the whole militia concept more thought now, beyond just what an individual would be advised to have ready.
The thing is, a militia draws its strength from not only the skills of the individual – but also from its numbers working in concert towards a common purpose.
As such, the individual – while well equipped – is still an individual. They are limited in their ability to influence events.
Only by working together in larger groups can they be effective – but private militias are problematic on both legal and constitutional grounds.
The issue at that point is: How can large numbers of the unorganized militia work together at becoming “well regulated” without running afoul of legal issues?
As I understand it, one of the things the German immigrants brought with them into the US prior to the War Between The States was a tradition of martial clubs for the men and these apparently had no legal issues associated with them.
I’d suggest a similar effort be made to recreate those same kinds of organizations across the country and be focused on providing the guidance and sense of organization to perform a number of tasks oriented towards developing those martial skills necessary for a functional militia.
First of all, get them into shape physically.
Organized marathon type activities, physical team oriented sporting events, even fencing, martial arts, hand to hand combat, camping trips, etc., all geared towards developing the skills and coordinated efforts a militia would find useful if ever actually called to service. This of course would be on top of learning to shoot and practicing it regularly.
Second of all, give them an identity. Something as simple as giving each club a name and identity within the larger organization, complete with its own logo or patch that might be incorporated into a hat or shirt or shooting jacket or whatever. The important thing is to build a common identity and sense of community. These groups could even compete with each other in various activities.
Third, organize these clubs from the grassroots up. Start at the local community level with a club in every small town. Expand out from that until there is an organization reaching even into the cities.
These clubs should be organized as basic building blocks so that, if a state government did need to call upon them, the organization is there from the start from small unit level on up.
Actively promote the incorporation of ex and retired military into the organizational structure so there is already a core of militarily trained individuals within the ranks of that club who can provide guidance and cohesion based upon real world experience in the military.
When the organization is finally well developed and has sufficient membership, begin approaching the various state governments for some type of recognition as a militia.
It needn’t be as an armed militia, it could be something as simple as providing support for relief efforts after a natural disaster, assisting in searches for lost children, that kind of thing.
The point being that the concept of militia be reabsorbed in a controlled manner back into the common vernacular as a viable, legal, constitutional, state recognized entity.
Interesting idea, but imagine how you would react to an Obama militia. If you could get a militia which drew from across the political spectrum, it would be helpful. I don’t recall the exact details, but Hitler’s S.A. began as a kind of militia, didn’t it? A sectarian militia is a dangerous thing.
So I take it you are opposed to what amounts to an adult version of the Boy Scouts?
After all, under my suggested scenario you are just adopting their purpose of developing a community involved and self-sufficient male who learns and then applies virtuous behavior – and then simply add more martial skills to the mix in an adult context.
It is not illegal to join clubs. It is not illegal to join shooting clubs. It is not illegal to join martial arts organizations. It is not (yet) illegal to speak ones mind and profess discomfort at the direction the country is going and note disagreement when someone like Cuomo advocates confiscation of weapons (a move by the British that triggered the battles of Lexington and Concord). Currently we do still enjoy the right to peacably assemble for any legitimate and legal purpose.
As long as this organization does not advocate the overthrow of the government then there is no reason for concern. And as I noted, the long term goal is to get the state governments to recognize these organizations and then utilize them constructively.
Also, keep in mind that at least up to around 1900 there were state militias that engaged – in their own manner – in the very activities I am proposing. The whole of my suggestion is to discern the best way to re-estalblish state militias in a peaceful and legitimate manner that the wider public would accept as “normal”, at which point that militia can then be seen as a counterbalance to an overreaching federal government.
Those militiamen at Lexington and Concord did not just get out of bed that morning and decide to go shoot at redcoats willy nilly – they had plans and tactics, and those plans and tactics manifestly involved using their local militias as effectively as possible against the most powerful military empire in the world.
Sounds ballsy – but they pulled it off, and they didn’t wait until they needed a militia to start organizing one.
Those plans and tactics had been drawn up while matters were still relatively peaceful, but while at the same time there were obvious dangers on the horizon.
Paul Revere and his buddies didn’t just come up with that whole “one if by land, two if by sea” idea on the fly. They’d been considering how to react long before the redcoats started their march.
As one of the Founding Fathers noted, and I forget the exact quote so have to paraphrase, the Revolution didn’t start in 1776 at Lexington and Concord – it had already started years earlier in the hearts and minds of patriots.
I personally don’t want to see such strife again in this country (I’m a father and husband), but I do wonder if we are reaching a similar state of mind now in many parts of the country. Whether we are or are not, having a true state militia again is decent insurance that could actually calm a lot of concern.
Gun owners (at least those who have been paying attention) know that a single man can’t stand against a federal assault force such as was employed at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Doesn’t matter how well trained the individual is nor how well armed they are, and it doesn’t matter how fortified their home is.
Numbers matter, and as long as federal swat teams have overwhelming numbers and firepower on their side then their masters have a certain confidence that local types won’t get involved as one after another of the ‘wrong type’ of gun owner is targeted all across the country to be made an example of while the inate tendency to be law abiding that is prevalent amongst gun owners keeps them from reacting and intervening.
After all, they are just individuals, and what can one man do when his neighbor is being burnt out of his home after his wife and son are murdered in cold blood? He may have his own family he is trying to keep safe.
But would that same federal assault force have been confident enough to attack in the first place had a militia of hundreds or even thousands of men been active within that area that would have taken a dim view of their actions?
I’m not advocating the overthrow of any government – far from it actually as I want a restoration – but if we accept that a primary goal of the Second Amendment was to act as a counterbalance to federal might, then it is important that that militia so referenced be able to fulfill its duties if called upon to do so by legitimate state representatives.
If that position is not accepted, then why even have the converswation about how best to equip an individual militiaman with weapons?
Y’know, to communities used to voluntary social work organisations like the KofC and the Rotary and Lions Clubs, this wouldn’t be strange even a little bit. Modern individuals are so alienated and atomised any of this sounds threatening and oppressive to them. Maybe or not, it’s all worse than it sounds……;p……..
The establishment peeps have to disarm US! We are threat for their coup that has already happened by the CIA!
Secret Service Interrogates 7th Grader For Facebook Post, Without Parental Consent video in the link!
http://theoldspeakjournal.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/u-s-secret-service-interrogates-13-year-old-without-parents-consent-over-facebook-status-update/
This is all such bullshit.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
After some thought it’s clear that at the time of this Amendment the purpose was to have a volunteer Army made up of citizens using their own weapons.
That turned out to be bad in a number of ways:
1) it was totally inadequate to the sort of challenges and wars the US turned out to face. We could have fought NONE of our wars with that sort of Army
2) it turns out that militas of that sort, though they are NOT what the US has, do exist around the world. They cause failed states. It turns out that governments need a monopoly on force to keep their countries from being ravaged by terrorits/militias, falling into sectarian conflict, anarchy, rule by criminal overlord etc.
You may all love to keep your guns, but the actual truth is that the basis for that right is an obsolete part of the constitution that is based on a very foolish model.
Yes having guns has advantages, it allows the weak to protect themselves, it makes the fearful feel stronger.
It also has disadvantages, as the US has 100 times the killings and 30 times the accidents (per capita) by guns of states like England.
And our schools get shot up every few years.
I guess you don’t know your history then.
The militia figured prominently in every US war up til WWI.
Roosevelts Rough Riders of the Spanish American War, if I am not mistaken, were a privately raised, armed, and equipped militia type unit.
The militias were quite effective during our nation’s Revolution – when utilized with a proper understanding as to their strengths and weaknesses. For instance, they were very effective in unconventional warfare, and when fighting close to their homes – but not nearly as effective when marched off to distant locations to fight.
And let’s not overlook the single most massive use of the militia – the War Between The States. THAT particular discussion is still the bloodiest conflict we’ve ever engaged in, and it still holds the unfortunate record as having the single bloodiest day in US military history.
And they did it basically with militias.
The advantage of a militia is the man is fighting on his home turf in defense of his home and loved ones. The disadvantage – if you could call it that – is militias are not so enthusiastic at conducting wars far away from their homes. This tends to dampen any adventurousness on the part of governments that have to rely upon militias when ideas of conquest or empire come up.
Ya might want to rethink your opinion of the matter.
As for the US having “30 times” the number of firearms accidents than England, well…..I’m sure there were far fewer airplane crashes as well before the Wright Brothers took to the sky, and I’m sure a nation in Africa still getting around on camels likely has a far lower total number of auto accidents – and both likely for the same reasons.
I didn’t say that precisely.
I didn’t mean firearms accidents, I meant non-fatal shootings, accidental or not.
Similarly I wasn’t really precise “The militia figured prominently in every US war up til WWI”. Ok fine, I didnt know that, but the point was that a militia isn’t a modern, useful army, and going back to a milita would be useless militarily.
Look the 2nd amendment was written a long time ago, weapons weren’t what they are now, transportation wasn’t what it is now. And the model it proposed doesn’t seem to be useful in the modern world.
Look around the world at the 20th and 21st century. Where do you see a milita being useful? Nowhere? Where can you see militas being harmful? Oh God, the horrors.
It doesn’t turn out that every idea in the constitution is a good idea.
You are confusing militias, which are military units composed of local men acting in concert to deal with local emergencies and recognized by the lawful government and acting under orders from representatives of that elected government…..with what amounts to private armies engaged in things like piracy and drug trafficking.
Look, if you are going to use the word “scholar” in your name, at least take the time to crack a book once in a while!
We already have legal agencies to deal with all that stuff.
So any “milita” that people arm themselves for would be an extra-legal milita.
I can’t imagine having those would be anything but a disaster.
Fancy Hezbollah opening a local chapter?
The right of “the people” to peacefully assemble” (there’s an amendment about that), and to bear arms (there’s an amendment about that too) in order to be “well regulated” (there’s that pesky amendment again) is perfectly legal.
If such an organization presented itself to a state government, and that state government in turn recognized that organization – it is NOT “extra-legal”. Quite the opposite.
As for law enforcement agencies, well……they did a bang up job when they finally showed up at Sandy Hook Elementary, didn’t they.
20 minutes after the murderer started shooting.
Too bad there weren’t any armed militiamen across the street at that Fire Station who could have gone in after the first minute or two of gunfire…..
Had one been at the front desk who could have returned fire – things would have gone decidedly different!
“Roosevelts Rough Riders of the Spanish American War, if I am not mistaken, were a privately raised, armed, and equipped militia type unit”
I’m no expert, but I don’t think that’s quite how it worked. They were volunteers, yes, but selected and trained by the government – most of their equipment came from the public purse. They weren’t a bunch of self-appointed gun-slingers.
“The militias were quite effective during our nation’s Revolution”
In the absence of a national standing, professional military, sure.
“And let’s not overlook the single most massive use of the militia – the War Between The States”
Again, only because the militia were the only game in town. Same in 1812. In the absence of a standing army, yes, militia are indeed better than nothing – assuming they’ll agree to fight on your side, that is.
“As for the US having “30 times” the number of firearms accidents than England, well…..I’m sure there were far fewer airplane crashes as well before the Wright Brothers took to the sky, and I’m sure a nation in Africa still getting around on camels likely has a far lower total number of auto accidents – and both likely for the same reasons.”
Well THAT’s enlightening. Are you saying the UK would have more firearms accidents if it had more firearms? Because I think that was the other guy’s point.
also to find something more useful than a murder-by-gun rate I searched around
Not all tables are ordered by rate, so some are pretty useless.
This one can be ordered by whatever you chose:
http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1
So our homocide rate is
… 4.2 per 100,000 in the latest statistic
The safest countries where I trust the stats are places like Japan with a rate of 0.6
I was surprised that Italy has only 0.9 in the latest stats. So all of Oriana Falaci’s bellyaching about uncivilized Muslim immigrants doesn’t actually translate into uncivilized behavior.
There are places that must have a serious problem like Guatamala with a rate of 38
For a second I wondered why Greenland’s rate jumps around so much, then I noticed the total count of homocides. In 2007 it was “2″. Very small place >.>
The latest UK stat is 1.2
So we’re 4 times worse than the UK, 4 times worse than Australia,
7 times worse than Japan, 7 times worse than Austria
We’re supposedly worse than Bangledesh… which had a genocide in the 70′s. Not sure I trust that stat. We’re slightly worse than India and Cambodia and Taiwan.
we’re 2 and a half times worse than Canada.
We’re twice as bad as Belgium.
etc
Norm the stats for race, ignorant lefty punk.
Can we normalize by gun ownership, swivel eyed racist creep?
I’ve spent the afternoon trying to normalize by ANYTHING, and the thing that most struck me was this …
The statistics from the US say “rape”, and the statistics from Australia say “sexual assault”. And they have entirely different definitions. I suspect that if the US used the australian definition, a lot of people would get a big surprise.
In the US, if violence is not used (statutory rape, rape of a minor, victim is unconscious) then it’s not included in the statistics. Also, rape of men is shoved sideways into “section II” statistics where arrests are counted, but not recording of offenses that contribute to the “forcible rape” statistics (why!?!). On the other hand, the FBI reports its rape statistics per 100,000 women, whereas Australia reports them per 100,000 people.
In australia, any unwanted physical act of a sexual nature, rape or otherwise (yes, rape does have a definition, don’t jump on my head), is included in that statistic that puts us up there above the US.
They’re comparing apples and turnips. I’m personally horrified that any crime statistic in australia compares unfavorably with the US. And don’t get me started on the reporting of sexual assault figures. But the US statistics for “forcible rape” are not, in any universe, comparable with australian statistics for “sexual assault”. They are not the same thing.
Someone on another site said that the other statistics are just as dishonest as the rape ones.
Apparently gun advocates compare aggravated assault in the US to lesser violent crimes in other countries.
Care to compare the rates of assault, at home burglary, and rape for those same countries? It is a fact the UK and Australia, for instance, have higher rates of both.
Hmmmm, wonder if fear of being shot has anything to do with that?
More pertinent, while Australia’s murder rate went down after their gun ban went into effect – the same decline in the murder rate happened in the US and was of a comparable amount even though we appear to have a much greater ethnic diversity.
So, are you suggesting American women should tolerate a higher incidence of assault and rape to assuage your angst over people actually having the audacity to exercise their natural rights?
“It is a fact the UK and Australia, for instance, have higher rates of both.”
The problem I’m having in trying to figure this stuff out, is that it seems to depend on who you ask, and how to compare the figures. See my comments about rape below.
If you look at the figures from the ABS (via the AIC) and FBI, australia is ahead of the US for assult (in 2010 – the 2011 figures for australia don’t seem to be available online). In fact, australia is way, WAY ahead – a multiple, in fact.
But again – the definitions are completely different. Here’s australia’s definition:
“The ABS defines assault as the direct infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person, including attempts or threats. It excludes sexual assault”
So, if you threaten to punch somebody and it’s recorded – that (appears to be) an assault. Here’s how the FBI defines assault – (or Aggravated Assault, the only figure it collects and publishes)
“The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.”
Those two definitions really aren’t comparable.
But … if we try to go around the varying definitions and look at international surveys, we get completely different results. Go have a look at the “INTERNATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS SURVEY” results for 2004/5, and the US is well ahead of (i.e. worse than) Australia in just about every violent crime category, but very slightly behind in most property crimes, or nearly identical (the same rate to one decimal place, in most cases). And before dismissing it – I’ll point out that the Y2000 version of the same report was made much of in the world press because it put australia at the top of the list for violent crime (figure that one out – I haven’t compared all of the reports yet). Sadly, they stopped running the surveys after 2004/5, so I’ve got nothing to compare with current figures. Most of the “international comparison” sites are using UN figures from 1992 – I haven’t even looked at those yet.
So the impression I’m getting is that if you try to standardise definitions, the US does a lot worse than the FBI UCR figures imply. But I’m sure that you’ll all go and check these things carefully before dismissing that, and your responses will be measured and full of references.
But I think that anyone trying to claim that any sort of crime rate in the US is lower than it is in australia is probably a bit under-informed.
@ Techno,
So let me get this straight….
It’s comparing “apples and oranges” when the rates of assault, at home burglary, and such are compared and show UK and Australia with far higher rates – but it’s perfectly legitimate when your so-called “scholar” does the same with firearms rates?
What a load of bull$hit.
“It’s comparing “apples and oranges” when the rates of assault, at home burglary, and such are compared and show UK and Australia with far higher rates – but it’s perfectly legitimate when your so-called “scholar” does the same with firearms rates?”
This might come as a shock, but the scholar and I are two completely DIFFERENT people. If you have a problem with the way he uses statistics, take it up with him. And I don’t think (although I could be wrong) that I said anything about comparisons of burglary and assault – I took a closer look at rape statistics, because I found it inconceivable that australia’s actual rate of rape could be 3 to 4 times as high as the US’ is. That would surely place us alongside some of the most violent, war-torn countries on the planet, and I think we’d have probably noticed.
The problem for comparing sexual violence statistics is that the definitions vary so widely. They’re just not talking about the same things. No, I’m not excusing some kids of sexual violence – I’m just point out that the US figures don’t include a fair slice of what australia’s do.
However … this morning I found an article in the new york times from Dec 6, titled “U.S. to Expand Its Definition of Rape in Statistics”. It seems that the FBI is about to update its definition from 1920s terminology for the 2012 UCR, to something closer to australia’s definition. So your federal sexual violence figures are probably about to go up a bit, to reflect reality.
Also I agree that we’ve had too many wars away from home.
Just from a money standpoint we can’t afford any more wars
One reason to avoid voting for Romney was his promise to overfund the military with money they didn’t even ask for, and his overthreatening posture with Iran.
Yeah I’m not happy with Iran, but WE’VE FOUGHT ENOUGH WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Actually, you might want to rethink your position.
While the militia featured prominently in the wars before the 20th century, they did not always do so in the spectacular fashion people like to suggest.
Even their best showing in the Revolutionary War simply did not determine the outcome. Rather it was the Continental Army, trained up to European standards, in connection with European allies, that won the critical final victories.
In the War of 1812, the militia actually failed completely because of political rivalries, refusing to cross the border and make a legitimate attempt to liberate Canada.
The Mexican-American War was essentially a regular army affair.
In the Civil War, militias were overwhelmingly filled out by untrained men and raw recruits, and unreliable due to their limited deployment times. And of course the problem of political officers hampered them even more than the regular army.
For the Spanish-American War, the problems that had plagued the militia in previous wars came to a head. Militia units weren’t even cadres of trained NCOs by then.
That is why the investigation was launched that eventually changed the militia into the National Guard.
So as a matter of historical record in the United States, militias are fair to excellent for low population density areas under high threat of violent warfare from irregular or semi-regular forces with severely limited equipment (that is to say, Indians), of poor to above average use in low population density areas to serve as irregulars harassing raiding parties of well-equipped armies (the Revolutionary War), of average to awesome use as a cadre during natural emergencies (up to the present time), and of poor to excellent but potentially dangerous use for low-level law enforcement (Range Wars, posses, labor squabbles, and the like).
As an actual reserve army, unless structured like the National Guard, they are of poor quality at best, a waste of resources more often than not.
You are making the mistake of comparing the effectiveness of regular army units with militia.
The militia was intended as a local (and immediate) response to local or statewide emergencies.
The regular army was the one tasked with conducting wars farther away – as was the case in the Mexican-American War as well as the Spanish American War. In the latter, militias were still raised and were supposed to support the regular army units – not take the brunt of the fighting.
As such, as in the War of 1812, the northern militia units that some adventurers decided to lead into Canada failed spectacularly because they were being used for a purpose they were absolutely NOT suited for (besides the fact I don’t think Canada really wanted to be “liberated”.).
When you look at the roster of troops in the War Between the States, you are looking at rosters organized by…..drumroll please…..state! The state militia units were taken into regular US military service – but retained their identities. In the Confederate army, they also retained their state unit designations.
Did I happen to mention that war was the absolute bloodiest? They seemed quite effective at killing each other.
I would not worry about the wording of the 2nd amendment as it already refers to updated weapons.
The founding Fathers had no idea that we could one day remove a gestating child before delivery and destroy it but it is perfectly acceptable as “Original Intent” when Liberals discuss the Right to Privacy Amendment.
Firearms referred to in the Constitution simply covers existing technology whatever time you use the Constitution to defend its Amendments. It does not need amending. //ji
“The founding Fathers had no idea that we could one day remove a gestating child before delivery and destroy it”
Er … really? Just how out of touch do you think these founding fathers were? The ancient greeks were doing it, as were citizens of north america – a hundred years before the declaration of independence.
What next – are you going to claim they didn’t know about narcotics?
Ahhh, Hemorrhoid – I mean Techno – which amendment could you point me to that says “Abortion on demand shall not be infringed?” Let me know –
Folks – yet another clear reason NOT to get steamrolled by anyone with a double digit IQ.
Good Grief Techno, I was responding to your response to me but I clearly didn’t realize until I went back and read the entire list of entries that you have pretty much had the crap kicked out of you already and I really didn’t need to be so harsh. I apologize. . . . .
So, you have my respect and sympathy for coming on and attempting to illustrate the minority position even though it failed miserably. With that I will gladly give you the last word with absolutely no counter.
“Good Grief Techno, I was responding to your response to me”
I was ignoring your response because it was ridiculous. Firstly, you don’t appear to have ever bothered to find out what the Roe v Wade ruling said. A uninfringed-upon right to “abortion on demand” is not what it provides for. Go read it, then come back and ask a more informed question.
“but I clearly didn’t realize until I went back and read the entire list of entries that you have pretty much had the crap kicked out of you already”
Some people have disagreed with, that’s for sure. And don’t think this is an easy thing to argue, but I don’t think I’ve been kicked at all. I think that whatever actual crime figures the US reports, they’re achieved not because of widespread gun ownership, but in spite of it.
What folks here consistently fail to recognise is that the law they now appeal to in order to protect themselves is what armed the bad guys in the first place – and like the monkey with its hand in the jar, you just can’t think far enough ahead to realise that there’s a better possible outcome.
I also happen to think that a lot of the posturing is just naive or, yes, sometimes even dishonest.
A jumble of middle-aged plinkers with an assortment of weapons is not going to have any impact should the US government decide to veer toward tyranny. The only thing that matters is whether if US military follows. If it does, your contribution will be meaningless. If it doesn’t, your contribution will be irrelevant. Odds are, most of you – armed or not – will just stay in your houses and complain about the democrats.
Same goes for the defense of the country. The sorts of weapons that would influence that outcome are either unavailable to you, or too expensive. Odds are, most of you – armed or not – will just stay in your houses and complain about the democrats.
“So, you have my respect and sympathy for coming on and attempting to illustrate the minority position even though it failed miserably. With that I will gladly give you the last word with absolutely no counter”
I don’t care what you do. Respond or don’t. Kick away.
Oh – and Merry Christmas -
Zeke, are you aware that we can copy and paste your comments into google and find out that they are copied verbatim? I.E. up around #40 when your discussing the Dick Act. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq4.asp
YOU’RE A TROLL
Of course I am Josh. Refer to the ‘format’ in the post you are probably referring to. Pretty obvious! If source credit is your point, the source doesn’t require credit. When its not obvious, I try to remember to use quotations as an indicator. When credit is required I always provide it. Last I checked, the Dick Act can be sourced from lets say, many sources. I think your only intent in responding was so you could gain attention with your “troll” comment. Hope you feel all better now that I’ve given you the attention you sought. Have a Merry Christmas!
Caa Caann Can’t we wee just all get along ?
Nope. What about well-REGULATED militia? It means that the federal government should not legislate to limit people’s ownership rights as that is the role of the states. Really, the fed govt should just limit rights to those within a militia run and sanctioned by the particular state. Then the state govt can regulate to their hearts’ content. No guns outside militias and militias to be run by states. Done… Federalism is intact.
Uh ohhhh.
We’d better ban Geely Sedans and Kitchen Knives.
Or…. Maybe not.
It’s not the tools, it’s the person. Bad people will always find a way to murder if there heart desires it, they will find a way regardless of banning the weapon of choice. Are we to ban pens and pencils? I’m sure someone has used these tools to murder before! Are they now called “Assault Pens and Pencils”? Come on!!!! Give your head a serious shake.
@DRUDGE_REPORT: Man distraught over daughter’s murder mows down 23 middle-school students… http://t.co/2KKIEg47
I love the first clause of the Second Amendment : “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA … ”
Bring on the regulation!