• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The gun expert from the New York Times

A militia defends the state, not the government.

As previously stated in the thread, the SCOTUS has ruled very clearly on this in 2008. The power of the Militia exits in the hands of citizens, not in any State, local or Federally recognized entity. This victory in 2008 was a GIGANTIC success for revolutionary rights advocates such as myself and pretty much single handedly changed my opinion about W. Bush's reign from a complete disaster to a Presidency with both Merit and Fault. This was a decision that closed 70 Years of debate over constitutional law, but the 2nd Amendment is now clearly defined as keeping the power of the Militia (the right to keep and bear arms) in the hands of the individual citizen. This is why the retrospective view if situations like Waco and Ruby Ridge are so much more scandalous, much as the existence of the ATF.
 
The National Guard didn't exist for another 120 years after that was drafted.

You might want to read up on what constituted a militia in that time.

P.S. Preamble aside, the operative clause is VERY clear:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Thanks for playing.

So when the individual colonies organized militias to fight in the Revolutionary War, they were actually going to a Lady Gaga show?

And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part? Are you going to the Supreme Court to overturn the National Gun Ban of 1934? Because if you are not, then you are certainly bending over to the government.
 
Again, just because the government gets away with infringing on a right, does not make it less of an infringement.

If you're distilling this to the "might makes right" argument, then you must be supporting the shooter in this case?
 
As previously stated in the thread, the SCOTUS has ruled very clearly on this in 2008. The power of the Militia exits in the hands of citizens, not in any State, local or Federally recognized entity. This victory in 2008 was a GIGANTIC success for revolutionary rights advocates such as myself and pretty much single handedly changed my opinion about W. Bush's reign from a complete disaster to a Presidency with both Merit and Fault. This was a decision that closed 70 Years of debate over constitutional law, but the 2nd Amendment is now clearly defined as keeping the power of the Militia (the right to keep and bear arms) in the hands of the individual citizen. This is why the retrospective view if situations like Waco and Ruby Ridge are so much more scandalous, much as the existence of the ATF.
I wouldn't get too excited about this.

Bush stacked the court with conservatives, and they have made some wonderful decisions like Citizens United, which I suspect will be overturned within our lifetimes.

As it happens to be, I agree with the 2008 decision DC handgun ownership, but I suspect when Scalia (age 74), Kennedy (74), and Thomas (my guess 60lbs over) "retire", their replacements will most likely be like Sotomayor.

Better hope that Hope fails in 2012...
 
Again, just because the government gets away with infringing on a right, does not make it less of an infringement.

If you're distilling this to the "might makes right" argument, then you must be supporting the shooter in this case?

Wow, I can't defend myself against this argument, "Hey this guy is beating me, so I'll accuse him of supporting a postal killer!"

I'm so flustered right now, so I am going to use "America. Love it or leave it!". Ok, Comrade Marlowe, enjoy your one-way trip on Air France.

P.S. I learned from the DADT repeal that a reasonable response from both sides works best.

For example, take the bi-partisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns 40 recommendations for better enforcing existing gun laws, without one suggestion of a new law. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/blueprint_federal_action.pdf

Or you can talk "taking back the government", and you can welcome mental health checks, 6 round magazines, bolt action, and bullet registration.

You decide.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly.

The first 4 words in the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia". The state's militia is there to protect the government.

The next part is the right to bear arms, almost as important as the militia.

The Founders intent was three fold, 1. To defend what eventually became the US government, 2. To protect us from undemocratic government, and 3. Our natural right to self-defense.

And there are plenty of arms regulations already. Knife length limitations, Tommy Guns illegal, 50 caliber ban, and a license to purchase explosives. I think the Patriot Act is more detrimental to my freedom then a 1000 foot no gun zone.

P.S. The cops don't care if you are walking by a building with your piece. They care if you are in the crowd with good sight lines holding a firearm. And I can't blame them.

Wrong.

The people's militia overthrew the government at the time, then they wrote the constitution in an attempt to guarantee that they would be able to do the same in the future if the new government stopped serving the people.
 
how many persons does a militia consist of? 1? 342? and if a militia were comprised of 342 persons, are they all required to have the same complaints and objectives, or will they, amongst themselves, have numerous (not to exceed 342) complaints and objectives. in which case, would they consider themselves to be a consortium of militia? a cartel? and would this require structure? (for the purpose of not undermining / canceling out / frustrating one another.) is it desirable to organize the varying complaints and objectives of the constituents of a militia (for the purposes of coordinated action)? and if so, how would this be accomplished? or would the various members of any given number of militia prefer to operate independently (not to exceed 342 independent actions or variants thereof). :dunno it could get quite complicated. unless 342 is a very high estimation of the total number. although, depending on the scope (local municipality, city, county, state, etc - the number would obviously vary in significance).
 
Woman's place is in THE KITCHEN, making sammiches. :p
 
Wow, I can't defend myself against this argument, "Hey this guy is beating me, so I'll accuse him of supporting a postal killer!"

I'm so flustered right now, so I am going to use "America. Love it or leave it!". Ok, Comrade Marlowe, enjoy your one-way trip on Air France.

P.S. I learned from the DADT repeal that a reasonable response from both sides works best.

For example, take the bi-partisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns 40 recommendations for better enforcing existing gun laws, without one suggestion of a new law. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/blueprint_federal_action.pdf

Or you can talk "taking back the government", and you can welcome mental health checks, 6 round magazines, bolt action, and bullet registration.

You decide.

I was making a point, one which you missed.

No, you're not 'beating' anyone, sorry.

Here's how this works:

"If that's how you feel, you must be headed to the SC."

Well, no, I don't have standing until I get prosecuted for something, and you know that.

So, I essentially have to sacrifice myself, to try and make this point, therefore I must be wrong, and the government must be right, because they get away with it.

IOW: might makes right.

That is the essence of your argument.

So I turned it around on you. If the ability to do something that infringes on other people's rights (like continuing to breathe, i.e., not getting shot) -- makes doing so okay, then you are also siding with the shooter.

I wasn't trying to make a flawed argument, just showing you how flawed the one you'd just made was.
 
^^^ hahaha - if i make sammiches, you gotta eat 'em (i been informed my skills - not so good).

I'll bite.

:laughing

How can one not make sammiches?

Bread, cheese, maybe some kind of meat, lettuce or tomato, good mustard...what could possibly go wrong?
 
I'll bite.

:laughing

How can one not make sammiches?

Bread, cheese, maybe some kind of meat, lettuce or tomato, good mustard...what could possibly go wrong?

oily tuna, do not drain the oil. the look on his face was p r i c e l e s s. shit, i cook for cats. what the fuck do i know?
 
I was making a point, one which you missed.

No, you're not 'beating' anyone, sorry.

Here's how this works:

"If that's how you feel, you must be headed to the SC."

Well, no, I don't have standing until I get prosecuted for something, and you know that.

So, I essentially have to sacrifice myself, to try and make this point, therefore I must be wrong, and the government must be right, because they get away with it.

IOW: might makes right.

That is the essence of your argument.

So I turned it around on you. If the ability to do something that infringes on other people's rights (like continuing to breathe, i.e., not getting shot) -- makes doing so okay, then you are also siding with the shooter.

I wasn't trying to make a flawed argument, just showing you how flawed the one you'd just made was.

You make no sense.

Your turn. Good night.
 
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls

Boehner opposes new gun-control bill
By Mike Lillis - 01/11/11 08:44 PM ET
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation offered by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in response to the weekend shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Arizona.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) announced plans Tuesday to introduce legislation prohibiting people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of members of Congress.

King, who has previously called for the removal of illegal guns from the streets, made the announcement alongside New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation’s loudest voices for stricter gun laws.
King said the legislation is not intended only for the safety of government officials but also to protect the public. He said elected officials are not necessarily more important than constituents, but by protecting them in this way, they would feel safer in meeting federal officials at public events.

“The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it’s essential, if we’re going to continue to have contact, that the public who are at these meetings are ensured of their own safety,” King said.

King’s legislation got the cold shoulder from Boehner and other Republicans after it was announced.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the Speaker would not support King’s legislation.

The office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the majority leader is reserving judgment until the King bill is finalized.

“Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring stated in an e-mail.

The immediate rejection of King’s legislation by Boehner illustrates the difficulty gun-control advocates will face in moving forward with any legislation.

Even Capitol Hill’s most ardent gun reformers don’t anticipate any changes to the nation’s gun laws will be forthcoming in the 112th Congress. They say the combination of a GOP-led House and the powerful gun lobby is simply too formidable to take on over an issue that’s become a proverbial third rail of Washington politics.

“Anything you can get through the gun lobby is going to have little consequence,” Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime supporter of tightening Second Amendment restrictions, said in a phone interview. “I don’t see the likelihood of much progress — I don’t see much hope.”

Aside from King’s proposal, longtime gun-control advocates Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) are working on legislation to prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines like those allegedly used by Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year-old college dropout who’s been charged in the Arizona rampage.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers say the public debate about whether incendiary punditry helped ignite the Arizona rampage has overshadowed the more important role that mental health played in the deadly shooting.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the sometimes violence-laced remarks from Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and other political commentators should be toned down, but were likely not the impetus for the shooting spree.

“Whether you blame them or any of those things on what happened, I don’t think is the issue,” Brown said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Rather, the reportedly erratic behavior of Loughner should have raised red flags about his mental health, Brown said — flags that might have led to treatments that could have prevented the tragic shootings.

“The mental health issues here haven’t been talked about much. We don’t really have much of a mental health safety net in this country. You know, there’s almost nobody watching today,” Brown said.

Although Loughner’s behavior reportedly set off enough alarms that he was expelled from community college and denied entrance into the military, he had no problems buying a hand gun from a local sporting goods store in November .

“This young man should have been [red-flagged] when he was thrown out of that community college,” Brown said. “The mental health safety net’s pretty shredded in Arizona, as it is nationally.”

King’s proposal perplexed some members of Congress, who wondered how it would be implemented because members are so mobile and often encounter individuals without knowledge that a congressional event is taking place.

“I think my concern would be, how do you put a 1,000-foot bubble around a member of Congress and what are you going to do about judges and Cabinet secretaries?” asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). “If you get past the logistics of it, it would seem to have a ripple effect throughout the upper echelons of appointed and elected officials.”

A spokesman for the National Rifle Association, Andrew Arulanandam, said this week that it would be “inappropriate” for the group to comment on potential reforms so soon after the tragedy.
 
You make no sense.

Your turn. Good night.
I know it is confusing – the back story is even more so… Several folks on the thread attempted to make the case that the shooter was exercising his Second Amendment right to shoot elected officials (governmental employees); presumably because the citizens in AZ were being repressed by the congresswoman whom they just elected. Sort of a one man militia kind of thing… At least that is a far as I could get…

I am not sure how that applies to the Second – “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.” Other than the shooter’s right to have a firearm (until such time as the State declares him a whack-job or a criminal), I don’t see a justification for the shooting within the wording or intent of the Second.
 
And pray tell, what liberty is infringed when you are only able to carry a gun within 1001 feet of a politician?

Just a little bit of incrementalism.

1000' of a school

Now 1000' of a politician? Sure, why not, the sheep are scared, they'll swallow it.

Next perhaps it'll be 1000' of any place where people gather, like shopping centers.

Next thing you know, that frog is boiled.

As for the intent of the framers, I think it was pretty clear. There's plenty to support it - just one example:

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." I n the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.

(Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm)
 
Just a little bit of incrementalism.

1000' of a school

Now 1000' of a politician? Sure, why not, the sheep are scared, they'll swallow it.

Next perhaps it'll be 1000' of any place where people gather, like shopping centers.

Next thing you know, that frog is boiled.

As for the intent of the framers, I think it was pretty clear. There's plenty to support it - just one example:



(Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm)

1000' of a politician is severe enough. It's not an increment. Let's say Politician is going to go on a JFK style parade in a convertable down your street. Cops better start going through the homes of NRA members to make sure they are not in violation of the law as the Politicos car goes by by their home. Need these warrants your honor, Have to make sure they aren't going to snipe from a window, for public safety you know. It's the law!
 
Back
Top