DC submits it's brief in Heller

[Tejas]

from: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

"Petitioners’ Brief in DC Guns Case Now Available
Friday, January 4th, 2008 12:30 pm | Jason Harrow

The Petitioners’ Brief in the case of DC v. Heller, No. 07-290, will be filed at the Supreme Court today and can be downloaded in full here. The Joint Appendix can be found here.

No argument date has been set, but the case is widely expected to be argued during the Court’s March sitting."


here's a PDF version linked on the page:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/petitioners-brief-in-dc-v-heller.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------


Some of this is hilarious, looks like DC shot itself in the foot here.

;)


edit: spellcheckeded :)

[class2068]

1. My quick read...

... says that DC is answering questions the Supreme Court didn't ask and is ignoring the questions posed by SCOTUS. This is not a winning formula.

[Tejas]

3. dumb question...

Being that they haven't actually submitted it, DC can throw this silliness in the trash huh?

[jody]

2. Satement of question presented and summary of D.C.’s argument

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02—violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes. Instead, it protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.

The first clause—“ well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—speaks only of militias, with not a hint about private uses of firearms. A well-regulated militia is the antithesis of an unconnected group of individuals, each choosing unilaterally whether to own a firearm, what kind to own, and for what purposes.

The second clause—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—equally addresses the possession and use of weapons in connection with militia service. In 1791, “Arms” and “bear Arms” were military terms describing the use of weapons in the common defense, and the word “keep” was used in connection with militiamen’s possession of the arms necessary for militia service.

Taken together, the two clauses permit only a militia-related reading. To conclude that the Framers intended to protect private uses of weapons, the majority below read the entire first clause to be extraneous and the second to be in tension with the natural, military meaning of “bear Arms.” If that had been the Framers’ intent, they would have omitted the first clause and used non-military language in the second.

History confirms the District’s reading. The primary concerns that animated those who supported the Second Amendment were that a federal standing army would prove tyrannical and that the power given to the federal government in the Constitution’s Militia Clauses could enable it not only to federalize, but also to disarm state militias. There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment. The drafting history and recorded debate in Congress confirm that the Framers understood its military meaning and ignored proposals to confer an express right to weapon possession unrelated to militia service.

2. The court of appeals erred for the independent reason that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. Such legislation cannot implicate the Amendment’s purpose of protecting states and localities from the federal government.

That conclusion follows from the history underlying the Constitution’s Seat of Government Clause. In 1783, disgruntled soldiers surrounded the State House in Philadelphia, causing the Continental Congress to flee because the local authorities would not protect it. The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the President, and this Court when similar state legislative authority was not constrained.

3. Finally, the judgment must be reversed for the separate reason that the laws at issue here are reasonable and therefore permissible. This Court has long recognized that constitutional rights are subject to limitations. Indeed, the majority below purported to recognize that gun-control laws are constitutional if they are “reasonable regulations.”

The majority nevertheless found that the Council’s findings regarding handguns’ unique dangers in an urban environment were irrelevant because, in its view, a ban on handguns is per se unreasonable under the Second Amendment. Equally irrelevant was the fact that the District allows residents to keep rifles and shotguns for private purposes. The majority instead concluded that the Second Amendment precludes the District from limiting a resident’s choice of firearms so long as the firearm chosen is in common use, has a military application, and is a lineal descendant of a type of arm used in 1791. That test is unworkable. It also has no basis in the Second Amendment and would implausibly give the right to keep and bear arms a uniquely privileged position in the Bill of Rights.

The District’s gun-control measures should be upheld under a proper reasonableness analysis. In enacting the laws at issue here, the Council responded to the serious dangers created by ownership of guns, considered various alternatives, and sensibly concluded that the handgun ban, plus trigger-lock and licensing requirements, would reduce crime, suicide, domestic violence, and accidental shootings. Preventing those harms is not just a legitimate goal; it is a governmental duty of the highest order. Moreover, those regulations do not disarm the District’s citizens, who may still possess operational rifles and shotguns. The laws at issue, adopted after extensive debate and consideration, represent the District’s reasoned judgment about how best to meet its duty to protect the public. Because that predictive judgment about how best to reduce gun violence was reasonable and is entitled to substantial deference, it should be upheld.

[L1A1Rocker]

8. Not smart

It would seem to me that a high school civics class could do better as a 6 weeks project.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. Try Home Schooling in Texas to Avoid Shooting Outside the Family

PS - There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a 9th grader the right to bring a gun into school.

[L1A1Rocker]

68. Just

What IS the color of the sky in your world. You are useing 9 th grade debating techniques. Your previous statement to me has NOTHING to do with this thread now ANYTHING I have said. PLEASE join the adults.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Guns Laws in Texas are Not Relevant

....... to Gun Laws in DC?

You live in Texas and have every right to defend your laws. Thanks for making MY point.

If calling me childish is the best you can do, there is a great feature called "IGNORE" you can employ.

[L1A1Rocker]

77. Please

Make you posts relivent to the OP. If you want to start your own thread feel free to do so. I have NOT referenced ANY Texas law. The OP was about the Heller case and SCOTUS. Being that it will be reviewed by SCOTUS it will apply TO ALL THE STATES. (please try to keep up)

I did not call you childish, I called you ignorant. Please educate yourself on the two. Again you make MY point by using a 9th grade debate technique, please join the adults.

As far as the ignore button. Feel free to use it. I'm actually enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself.

[Tejas]

84. They are an excellent example of civilized

gun laws, even though there is plenty of room for improvement. Safe to say, looks like DC (Fenty, fightthegoodfightnow et al) are about to receive a dose of reality to bring your gun laws out of the dark ages.

Myself, I think it's a good thing. You however seem to disagree with your fellow citizens (Parker, Heller, etc) that think they should be allowed to sleep safe in their own homes.

I don't understand that and you're more than welcome to enlighten me on the reason(s) for your position. Fenty is simply a whorish pawn, but you no doubt have more honesty to bring to the table....let's see some.

And please, do better than copy/pastes of Bradyisms.

[krispos42]

198. Non sequitur

I understand and appreciate that you are passionate about this issue in particular and the rights of DC citizens in general. The particular legal status of District citizens is unknown by most of the country, nor do they particularly care.

However, your post is a non sequitur that seems designed to be inflammatory without cause.

[virginia mountainman]

4. HA HA

GOOD, I suppose it was a good thing that they FIRED their lead attorney on Monday.

Made a weak case, even weaker!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. Clueless

No surprise that you have no idea why he was fired.

[Tejas]

21. At least you admit that

it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the merits of their brief. Has everything to do with who gets that 30 minutes.


(get a clue, will ya?)

"Shirt Color Doesn't Have Anything To Do With It Either, for 400, Alex"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. At Least You Admit

........... you have no idea what I said.

[slackmaster]

5. I'm not a lawyer but that reads like gobbledy-gook to me

:popcorn:

Synopsis:

- The Second Amendment doesn't apply to private ownership or use of firearms;

- The Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC;

- The Districts regulations are reasonable because we said so.

[Tejas]

6. maybe?

- The Second Amendment is to protect Congress, can't have upset citizens owning guns.

[Boomer 50]

7. I believe this will hurt DC

Your synopsis of that situation is dead on. Think SCOTUS will agree that the people have no 1st Amendment rights? I know that some institutions such as BATFE do not believe that there is a right to redress of grievence but I hope that SCOTUS is above such draconian beliefs. I think DC messed up bad with this brief. Somehow I doubt that their 30 minutes to argue the case before the court will fix this repetitive waste of paper.

[Tejas]

12. Call me crazy but

I think Scalia will rip them up one side and down the other. 50yd line seats for this could only be purchased with huge amounts of unobtanium, but worth thrice the price.

:)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. There is Something Funny about a DU Member

.........calling upon Scalia to 'rip them up'.

[Tejas]

20. You're more than welcome

to attend the proceedings, it should be quite a show.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. Obviously.......

......... you don't know a thing about how Scalia conducts himself in Court, regardless of his judicial positions. He is one of the least likely to engage anyone.

PS - There is something perverse about a DU member getting wet with anticipation that Scalia will support his or her positions.

[Tejas]

37. No, Scalia will not attack DC's counsel with a chainsaw,

but he will definitely have something to say when it's all said and done.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Must Make You Proud to Know Scalia is a Friend

:puke:

[Tejas]

86. You're starting to catch on

;)

[Tejas]

105. Perverse?

Would that make me a gun-perv? Scalia is pro-RKBA, he's a gun-perv too?


Good for me, bad for you, anything else?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. Yea.....

That's something to be proud of.

LOL.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Hurt DC?

LOL............ without a gun?

Redress of grievances?

Give me a break. Is that like 'Taxation without Representation'?

Live in our neighborhoods and then you can lecture us about what 'hurts' us.

[Boomer 50]

205. Been there, done that.

That is why I moved out.

What about redress of Grievances? No, it isn't like Taxation without representation. You have the right to complain to your elected official on issues that concern you. In the DC brief, they state that the 2nd Amendment covers states to protect Congress from those who would seek redress of greivance. So, DC is saying that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the Governments from the citizens so that the governments can do what they want without worry about us complaining. Doesn't that sound like something the Shrub in the White House would want?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

218. Don't Know

But I'm going to go with what the words of the Second Amendment say and they don't say anything close to your interpretation.

As for our 'elected officials', they do not have the right to VOTE in your Congress making any claim you make to the accountability of representative government nonsense. Doesn't that sound like the reason we fought for our Independence to begin with?

I'll leave you to talk about the 'shrubs'.

[L1A1Rocker]

231. Broken record again

Skip, skip, skip.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. State Militias

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.

HINT: DC is not a state.
HINT: No reference to private ownership.
HINT: You don't live in DC and have no standing here.

[L1A1Rocker]

25. please

If you are going to quoate the 2A please, please quoate it correctly and please please quit adding commas.

Hint: DC is intitled to god given basic human rights. That "not a state" BS could be used to deprive DC residence of LOTS of basic rights.
Sub-Hint: Right to jury of peers
Sub-Hint: Right to secure in person, place, and affects.
Sub-Hint: Right to a laywer
Sub-Hint: Etc, Etc

Hint: The first 10 amendments were ritten in as the Bill of Rights to garentee CITICENS rights. Please do a little basic research on United States history. Remember this is the SECOND constitution we are working under. There is a reason for it!!!

Hint: I DON'T NEED STANDING! This is a public forum FOR ALL to discuss issues. Typical: Don't like what someone has to say so try and shut them up. Let's see, what is the term for that????

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. Are You for Real

You write: 'Hint: DC is intitled to god given basic human rights. That "not a state" BS could be used to deprive DC residence of LOTS of basic rights.'

TYPICAL: We don't have the right to vote. We have no representation in your government. We are already deprived of basic civil and human rights like self government.

But heh........let's hear you bitch about how you don't need standing to post on a public message board. Duh !

[L1A1Rocker]

52. Thank you

For making my point for me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. DUH

Looks like I'm not doing a very good job of silencing you. (That was sarcasm in case you are clueless.)

If you had a point, you certainly didn't make it. Exhibit A: you're still posting on this board making your silence claim nothing more than a red-herring bogus piece of nonsense.

Laughing so hard it hurts.

[L1A1Rocker]

79. You

truly need help. Or your suck on a 9th gread debating team. Because you certantly post like it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Nonsense

You write: 'Typical: Don't like what someone has to say so try and shut them up.'

As if I could. Give me a f*cking break.

I suppose ultimately that the reason DC doesn't have the right to representation in your government is some *ssholes want to shut us up.

[L1A1Rocker]

54. Again

Thank you for making my point for me as only YOU can so eloquently do.

Thanks

[hansberrym]

26. What was meant by "a free state" ?

From Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance(1785):
"We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. " (my emphasis in boldface)

Was Madison referring to Virginia as “a free state” in the sense that the commonwealth was one of the states of the Union under the Articles of Confederation? Or was he characterizing Virginia as “a free state” meaning a non-tyrannical government in which citizens were able, and duty bound, to defend their rights against dangerous abuses of power by the government?

The answer to that question is found in the list of reasons that Madison gives for opposing the Bill for establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian Religion –the first of which concerns the protection of an individual’s right to worship as his own conscience directs and includes Madison’s observation that the will of the Majority sometimes tresspasses on the rights of the minority. Thus the concern is not merely for the freedom of action of the “state” or the “government” but for the freedom of the individual in relation to government.

"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority"


Returning to the Second Amendemnt, one could, as a thought experiment, try adding the words “of the union” after “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.
Is the meaning retained?
What function would the word “free” have in that sentence?
Would it act to limit the protection to only “free” states?
Which states were not free?

Did the framers believe that "a well regulated militia" was necessary only to "free states" of the union, or did they hold that belief as a general proposition, and assume that the Union was a "free state" in the sense that Madison earlier used the phrase in Memorial and Remonstronce ?



There is more at
http://volokh.com/posts/1173488580.shtml

[slackmaster]

40. DC does have a militia

Look it up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. DC is Not a State

Look it up.

[L1A1Rocker]

56. Well then

A guess DC dosen't get ANY protections then. So the next time we state folk run short on where to put our troops it is good to know we can bunk them at your place. Thanks for letting us know it will be legal to do it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. Now You are Finally Getting It

We do not have the protections of states. Heck, this is YOUR government..........not ours.

You seem to think it's legitimate.

I've had far more transgressions than having soldiers in my house............ including not having the right to vote.

[L1A1Rocker]

80. I see

You have some very serious emotional issues with regard to DC that does not allow you to have a rational debate regarding this subject. Please seek professional help.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. DC Does Not have a State Militia

..........just a militia.

Look it up.

[L1A1Rocker]

57. Not an organized malita

But they do have an un-organized malitia. Please read your history.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. YAWN

...........adding words to the Constitution to make your case?

[L1A1Rocker]

71. No

Reading the definations of words for the time. You might try it some time. You'd make a little more sence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Reading the Definition for the Times?

Got it. LOL.

I'll have to remember that little bit of judicial activism.

[L1A1Rocker]

81. And you do it again

Cannot debate the issue so you make a disparaging remark and add a red harring. Please educate yourself before inserting your foot.

[jmg257]

204. Hint: "the right of the the People...shall not be infringed" secures the right

of the People of the United States. Are the people of DC people of the United States? If so, your right is secured, and would be secured anyway, but especially thanks to the IX, whether this amendement enumerated that right or not.

Also: "This is the case of our new Federal Constitution. This instrument forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

"a free State" represents the United States as a governmental union/unit. The 2nd makes the wonderful observation of how important a well trained militia is to a free country. But most importantly, it protects OUR right, as citizens of the US, to keep and bear arms from ALL infringments.

Now DC was mistaken in other ways - because they insist at the time that "bear arms" is a strictly military phrase, yet conveniently supply the correct response to that, when they quoted this: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;" they clearly showed the phrase had self-defence and recreational uses too.

SO quite obviously the right secured is secured for ALL the people, absolutely, for any use the people care to enjoy (as long as the use of that right does not infringe on rights of others. And of course, like other rights, it can be suspended for cause via due process).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

219. I Stopped Reading About the "RIghts of the People"

.......when you and your government denied the People the Right to VOTE !

[L1A1Rocker]

230. There goes that broken record again

Skip, skip, skip, no right to vote, skip, skip. . .

[hansberrym]

9. Randy Bartlett provides counterpoints to nearly all arguments made in the DC brief

regarding the history of the Second Amendment in his book review of
The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent by Uviller and Merkel.



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=420981

Barnett, Randy E., "Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=420981#PaperDownload

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Wrong Question

You ask: 'Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?'

Wrong question.

Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia............. would be more like it.

[hansberrym]

31. Care to explain ? Do you suppose the the right was created for

the purpose of having an organized militia?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Good Question

Good question.

[hansberrym]

36. Well...what is your answer? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. I'm the One Asking the Question

LOL.

[hansberrym]

43. Where? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

48. Post 29

Post 29

[L1A1Rocker]

63. No

Your the eletist that refused to answer the orginal question and substituted your own question.

[hansberrym]

41. When did you ask a question? You have made only declaratory statements thus far. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Example of a Question

Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?

[hansberrym]

50. Yeah, THAT would be a question. But that is not what you wrote.

You wrote:

Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia............. would be more like it.


That is declaratory and I responded as to why you would suggest that.


You then dodged, but then that all the deniers can do is to dodge. If you were to engage in debate and answer directly your claims would quickly fail.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Funny

Let me get this right: If I were to engage in a debate (I thought we were--LOL), my claims would quickly fail? Oh, that's rich.

If you don't like how I 'engage' you, then use your ignore feature.

[hansberrym]

70. Yes. Do you see how easy it is to answer a question? n/t

[L1A1Rocker]

64. Mabee

if you answered his original question he MIGHT answer your question. I doubt it as you have been nothing but an ass in this debate. But you seem to be running at par for most of your "contributions" to gun debates.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. OK....now we can add your claim that I'm an

......ass to your claim I'm ignorant.

But heh....keep thinking you're elevating the debate.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Will E Orwontee]

197. FTGFN's "QUESTION" ANSWERED!!!!!

Posted by fightthegoodfightnow:

Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?

Setting the above question's grammatical deficiencies aside and FTGFN's evasive "debate" tactics, FTGFN's position can be easily discerned and effectively rebutted.

FTGFN's position first demands one ignore or otherwise dismiss over a century of plain, unambiguous Supreme Court precedent. SCOTUS has said that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and that the right to arms is not dependent, in any fashion, on the Constitution for its existence.

What's that mean?

Well, since the right is not created, conferred, established, given or otherwise granted to the citizen (or any entity for that matter) the words chosen merely to SECURE the right can not be outwardly interpreted to restrict, qualify or condition the right only being recognized and guaranteed.

Your reading of the Amendment begins ass-backward because you fail to understand (or refuse to accept) the right existed before the Constitution was enacted and no power to injure the right was ever granted to government. See, that's a fundamental maxim of our form of government; ALL NOT SURRENDERED IS RETAINED. The 2nd is only telling the feds what they are forbidden to do even though no power ever existed to actually act in such a manner . . . The Amendment is completely redundant and unnecessary; as SCOTUS has said, even setting the 2nd Amendment out of view, government can not disarm the citizen.

The right to arms is a completely separate entity from the 2nd Amendment and any interpretation that conditions the exercise of the right on language that does not create, establish or confer the right is illogical and unconstitutional. It is akin to someone saying Newton's Law modifies, constrains or can even be interpreted to negate gravity.

It is possible for FTGFN's question to become grammatically, historically, legally and logically correct and all it requires is a small edit . . . One must add just a single word (but it imparts an immeasurable shift of philosophy, making it correct!):

Was the right to keep and beer arms secured for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?

The answer then is an emphatic YES! The 2nd Amendment was written with "obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such (militia) forces." (US v Miller) That is the "object" of the Amendment; to ensure that in times of emergency the state could always call the citizen to muster and the farmer, blacksmith, butcher, baker and candlestick maker would appear with firearms supplied by themselves, a prudent supply of ammunition and sufficient provisions in a knapsack for a few nights away from home. The "object," in and of itself, is not self-fulfilling nor self-perpetuating; other conditions are required to fulfill the object. The citizen and his "secured," pre-existing right to arms is the "means" to achieve the Amendment's "object."

Just so we are all on the same page, here are the definitions of "object" and "means" and "secured" as I am using them:

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

OB'JECT, n. 2. That to which the mind is directed for accomplishment or attainment; end; ultimate purpose.

MEAN, n 3. Instrument; that which is used to effect an object; the medium through which something is done. In this sense, means, in the plural, is generally used, . . .

SECU'RED, pp. Effectually guarded or protected; made certain; put beyond hazard; effectually confined; made fast.

Try this revised 2nd Amendment on for size; this structure illuminates what the provision is about.

Because the people are secure in their right to keep and bear arms, States will be assured of their ability to raise, organize and train well regulated militias as the States deem necessary for their security.

Your (and the District's) argument that the 2nd does not apply to DC because DC is not a state is defeated on multiple fronts; here's two . . .

1) The 2nd does not speak to, protect or defend any state action nor does it forbid state action, it is only binding on federal action. Thus, the entire "it's a state right provision so it couldn't mean DC" is muted. Not only is the "state's right" interpretation dead, it was dead in 1942 when it was first used in the federal courts. The federal courts continue to opine that the 2nd affords the states an immunity that SCOTUS has held for over 180 years, DOES NOT EXIST! Thankfully this smoke and mirror sideshow will soon be kicked to the curb.
2) Being that DC is federal enclave and completely under the command and control of Congress, the provisions binding Congressional action are in force even against whatever structures and schemes of lower political subdivisions created by Congress. . . The DC Council is a creature of Congress, Congress is a creature of the Constitution; neither can ignore or dismiss the "higher power." The Council is not autonomous (as you have stated) neither does it enjoy any sovereignty.

FTGFN (or anyone), awaiting your reasoned, on point rebuttal to any of my positions!

[L1A1Rocker]

201. What a reply!!!

Cannot add a thing. Thank you for taking your time for such an eloquent reply!!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

207. Short Response

Thank you for your reasoned response, but it is flawed on numerous fronts even if in some ways, you support my position.

1. If the Second Amendment exists for the purpose of the militias, the only militias at the the time of the writing the BOR were those of states.
2. Nothing in your remarks suggests their is an individual right to own a gun for ANY purpose.
2. Congress, as you acknowledge, has ultimate authority to over ride any statue written by the District and it has failed to do so. The court could simply uphold the law pending Congressional review.
4. I don't make any 'state's rights' claims in defending our statue. In fact, I have repeatedly stated we are NOT a state and can make no such claim.

[Will E Orwontee]

211. Backatcha . . . .

Thank you for your reasoned response! It is flawed in finding my post supports your positions! :)

fightthegoodfightnow wrote:

1. If the Second Amendment exists for the purpose of the militias, the only militias at the the time of the writing the BOR were those of states.

You are still ignoring the fundamental principle that the 2nd does not create, establish or confer the right. The reason why the right was secured does not impart conditions, qualifications or limitations on the scope or exercise of the right -- unless specifically outlined and conferred to government.

SCOTUS has said,

"The right . . . of bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government"

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Now, how can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the right DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?

On your 2nd point: Any militia power enjoyed by the states is fully deliniated in Art I, § 8, cls 15 & 16; and that's it . . . The 2nd Amendment has never been referred to for illumination of state militia power, nor has it ever been claimed by any state to defeat federal preemption of state militia powers (inexplicably I might add; if the "purpose" of the 2nd was only to protect the state's militia from federal "infringement" -- but that's another thread!).

fightthegoodfightnow wrote:

2. Nothing in your remarks suggests their is an individual right to own a gun for ANY purpose.

I doubt that any writings exist in reference to the colonial issues, expounding on the merit of publishing of materials about the sciences, doubt that there was much debate about the benefits of free access to novels and short stories or poems. Are you saying these things did not exist or are excluded from the protections of the 1st Amendment?

The debates, the editorials, the pamphlets all addressed issues of the political ramifications of the injuries to liberty imposed by the crown. Had General Gage ordered all romance novels seized perhaps there might be something in the record or Bill of Rights about that. As we know, he ordered the inhabitants of Boston disarmed and the seizure and destruction of arms stored in private dwellings in Concord, for political reasons. That is the reason the only firearm use described in the 2nd is that in opposition to tyranny, not deer hunting. The right to arms exists without any reference to the 2nd, the 2nd exists because armed citizens are a fundamental, inseparable component of our governmental model.

The right to keep and bear arms for ANY (legal) purpose was being freely exercised by individuals well before the inception of our government (without any qualification of militia service) and no power was ever granted to government to change that condition. Again, your premise is entirely backward, that hunting, home protection, target shooting and the shooting sports in general are not listed in the 2nd as protected exercises of the right does not disqualify those uses from being exercised (and protected).

It is however, a fact that the Constitution does not empower government in any way to have any import whatsoever on hunting, home protection or the shooting sports in general, and that silence is an ironclad prohibition against federal governmental interference in those matters.

fightthegoodfightnow wrote:

3. Congress, as you acknowledge, has ultimate authority to over ride any statue written by the District and it has failed to do so. The court could simply uphold the law pending Congressional review.

Uhhhh, come on now. That's where the Congresscritters live and work for crissakes! They don't want the restless natives armed! Look, the impetus for the ban was racial and like most gun control was intended to disarm blacks. One only need to refer to the social climate of the time and the historical racial demographics of the city . . . After decades of 2-1 advantage, white residents watched the demographics flip in the late 60's and by 1970 blacks outnumbered whites 540K to 200K. With the city in economic ruin from the '68 riots and a rocketing crime wave it's really no surprise the nervous DC elites in power enacted such a measure in the early '70's and continue to tacitly endorse its continued existence.

fightthegoodfightnow wrote:

4. I don't make any 'state's rights' claims in defending our statue. In fact, I have repeatedly stated we are NOT a state and can make no such claim.

But your position that "the 2nd does not apply to DC because DC is not a state" is completely dependent upon the "state's right" interpretation! If the Amendment is as I posit, an immunity enjoyed by individual citizens of the United States from illegitimate exercise of federal power, then the 2nd is undeniably applicable upon DC and its subordinate (to Congress) government.

Again, inspection of Supreme Court rulings on the right to arms, the 2nd Amendment and militia power (three separate things) demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment has zero effect or influence upon any state interest. As quoted above, it's only ambit of influence is to, "restrict the powers of the national government."

FTGFN, a simple question -- who do you argue is the protected entity of the 2nd Amendment; who can legitimately claim the 2nd as defeating federal overstepping of authority?

1) State governments
2) Individual citizens
3) Other (please explain)

[krispos42]

333. Nice...

...very nice indeed.

Such exhaustive legal writings have been in short supply in the Gungeon since Iverglas stopped posting a few momths ago. Of course, her tone was decidedly anti-gun.

Welcome to DU, and the Gungeon in particular...

[L1A1Rocker]

61. Yet again

refuses to answer. See previous post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. What Do You Think?

Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?

[L1A1Rocker]

73. That information

Can be found in the collected works of the people that wrote it. Why not open you mind and while your at it open a book. Or just read what Allen Durshawertz (sp?) has to say about it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. And I'm the Elite One?

Good grief. Talk about arrogant.

Is it just possible that I read the 'collected works of the people who have written it' and that a reasonable person could come to a different conclusion?

[L1A1Rocker]

85. Is it possible

Very doubtfull. But I state it again. Based on your colossel ignorance of the subject at hand and add to it your inability to assign the correct defination the "malitia" I can come to a reasonable conclusion that you have NOT read ANY history of the topic at hand.

[hansberrym]

82. I think your grammar school teachers are rolling in their graves.

You wrote:
Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?


Care to explain what you mean by that?

Are you suggesting that the right was crafted for a specific purpose?

Are you suggesting that the right can be excercised ONLY for a specific purpose?

Did you mean to ask whether the right existed for the purpose...?


What is the subject and what is the predicate in your question?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. You Worded Your Original Question to Advance Your Point of View

Two can play that game.

I believe the Second Amendment was written the way it was for a reason. In fact, the original text that came out of committee was 'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.'

[Tejas]

94. ya thunk?

'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms and pay taxes until the cows come home.'


:)

[hansberrym]

109. Maybe two can write answers and questions that make sense?

The original question

"Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?"

makes sense given the DC Brief


The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes. Instead, it protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.


and the Supreme Court's framing of the question in Heller:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”



On the other hand, your question is vague(most likely on purpose) and grammatically challenged.


Your refusal to even clarify the meaning of your own question is evidence that your POV is not to engage in debate, but to dodge. There is an adage that goes something like this: when the facts are on your side, argue the facts -otherwise muddy the water. You have chosen to employ the tactic of muddying the water for obvious reasons.



You wrote:
Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?


Care to explain what you mean by that?

Are you suggesting that the right was crafted for a specific purpose?

Are you suggesting that the right can be excercised ONLY for a specific purpose?

Did you mean to ask whether the right existed for the purpose...?


What is the subject and what is the predicate in your question?

[gorfle]

313. Does the 2nd Amendment only apply to militias?

Are you part of a militia? Is it well-regulated?

The "you aren't part of the militia" argument has many holes in it, FTGFN.

The first is that there is, in fact, both an organized militia and an unorganized militia.

From: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20080...

January 8, 2008: Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)

The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.

Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.

But, as far as I'm concerned, all the legal wrangling over the meanings of what is a militia and who is really in it is just a bunch of semantic arm waving.

The real issue here is what was the intentions of the founding fathers. I urge you to read Federalist 29:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29....

It is very clear that the founding fathers intended that there be no standing federal army, or at least a very small one. The reason was that they feared it would become a tool for a tryannical federal government. To counter this possibility, yet still provide for the defense of the nation, they proposed that the STATES would each have their own armies (militias), made up of men from those states, and led by officers from those states. By decentralizing the army, they hoped that the federal government would have no military muscle by which to enforce a tryanny. The purpose of militias - state run military forces - was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. It is essential to understand and agree on this point before any other debate can be served on the matter.

All of this changed in 1903/1910. At that point the state militias became the National Guard. What this did was effectively convert state military forces into federal reserve forces. Now, instead of serving to counter federal military power, the National Guard serves to augment federal military power.

If you stick to the argument that only people in the National Guard can own firearms, then you have destroyed the counterbalance clearly intended by the founding fathers.

Thus even if the founding fathers intended for the people of the militias to be able to keep and bear arms, the reason for this was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. Even if the militias they envisioned are gone, the people are not! In order for the vision of the founding fathers to be preserved, the right to keep and bear arms must fall back to the people, militias or no!

Usually at this point anti-gun folks give up the militia angle of the argument and proceed on to say that any resistance of the people against a modern military force is futile. Iraq is a great example of how this is untrue. We will ultimately be driven out of Iraq because the American people are tired of the cost, morally and in lives and dollars, of staying there. Just like happened to the British a couple hundred years ago.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

314. Treason

You write: 'It is very clear that the founding fathers intended that there be no standing federal army, or at least a very small one. The reason was that they feared it would become a tool for a tryannical federal government."

Nonsense. The Constitution clearly addresses treason in Article 3, so the notion that we have the right to own guns to overthrow our own government and by extension our Constitution is not, in my opinion, well founded.

You write: 'It is very clear that the founding fathers intended that there be no standing federal army, or at least a very small one. The reason was that they feared it would become a tool for a tryannical federal government. To counter this possibility, yet still provide for the defense of the nation, they proposed that the STATES would each have their own armies (militias), made up of men from those states, and led by officers from those states. By decentralizing the army, they hoped that the federal government would have no military muscle by which to enforce a tryanny. The purpose of militias - state run military forces - was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power."

Hhummm which is it....... the founders intended there be "no standing federal army" or that they intended to have "state military forces to counter balance federal military power'?

[gorfle]

324. It is clear you did not bother reading the cited articles...

Nonsense. The Constitution clearly addresses treason in Article 3, so the notion that we have the right to own guns to overthrow our own government and by extension our Constitution is not, in my opinion, well founded.

It is clear that you probably did not read the articles I cited. Article 3 most certainly does address treason. It does not, however, address my assertion that the founding fathers intended that there be a very restricted or non-existant federal army, instead being in favor of state-loyal militias, all for the purposes of preventing a federal tyranny. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about that at all.

Getting back to my assertion, from Federalist #29:

"It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.""

Here we see that, according to Hamilton, the plan was to empower the Union to provide for arming and disciplining the the state militias, but the authority to appoint officers and the training was reserved for the State.

Why is this distinction made and so carefully emphasized?

Here we are:

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper."

It is clear here that Hamilton is saying that they have set up a system whereby the federal government can "command the aid of the militia", and consequently it can "better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force" - a federal army. He goes on to say that if the federal government cannot avail itself to the state militias, it will have no choice but to be obliged to have a standing army of its own. He says that having state militias is the surest way to render a federal army unnecessary - far more certain than "a thousand prohibitions upon paper".

He continues later in the document saying:
"If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia."

Here he is saying that if it were possible for the federal government to try and use the state militias for nefarious purposes, the fact that the state militias are lead by officers loyal to the states would eliminate that capability.

There are numerous other examples to support my assertion that the founding fathers had an extreme distaste for the federal government having its own standing army.

From Federalist #26:

"From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace."

And:

"The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent."

I have spent about an hour here this afternoon doing some basic academic legwork for you, as a courtesy. My advice would be for you to go and read The Federalist Papers, specifically #26-#29:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed27.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed28.htm
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

Hhummm which is it....... the founders intended there be "no standing federal army" or that they intended to have "state military forces to counter balance federal military power'?

It is exactly as I said: The founders intended that there be no federal standing army, or, at least, a very small one. The intent was to have state military forces to counter the balance of federal military power. I think you have some confusion over the meaning of "federal" and "state" in this context. In this context, "federal" means forces under the direction of the central government, while "state" means forces under the control of the individual states.

I've been watching your back-and-forth with others people in this thread and your responses thus far have pretty much been "Nuh-uh!!!". To be fair, most of the responses back to you have been, "Yuh-huh!!!"

I have presented you with a reasonable, non-inflammatory, well-cited assertion of the mindset of the founding fathers. If you wish to debate my assertion you are going to have to do a bit of academic leg work on your own and cite some supporting evidence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

325. Yawn

You write: 'It (article 3) does not, however, address my assertion that the founding fathers intended that there be a very restricted or non-existent federal army, instead being in favor of state-loyal militias, all for the purposes of preventing a federal tyranny. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about that at all."

Hhummm which is it....... the founders intended there be "no standing federal army" or that they intended to have "state military forces to counter balance federal military power'?

You write: 'The founders intended that there be no federal standing army, or, at least, a very small one. The intent was to have state military forces to counter the balance of federal military power. I think you have some confusion over the meaning of "federal" and "state" in this context. In this context, "federal" means forces under the direction of the central government, while "state" means forces under the control of the individual states."

Ok...........anyone who claims that the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, the US Marines, the US Coast Guard and the President of the United States is subservient to the state militias is not anchored in reality or any notion of Constitutional law.

The Constitution clearly addresses treason in Article 3, so the notion that we have the right to own guns to overthrow our own government and by extension our Constitution is not, in my opinion, well founded.

[gorfle]

330. On Constitutional Law and Article 3...

Ok...........anyone who claims that the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, the US Marines, the US Coast Guard and the President of the United States is subservient to the state militias is not anchored in reality or any notion of Constitutional law.

Look, what we are trying to get at the root of is what was the framers' state of mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment and spoke of Militias. You have focused the debate on the right to bear arms as a right of militias, and consequently we need to understand what the founding fathers meant by militias and what role they expected the militias to play, and why.

We are not talking about the state of militias today, because militias, at least organized militias as they existed during the framers' writings no longer exist. Organized militias were essentially federalized in 1903/1910 with the Dick Act.

There was obviously no Air Force in the framers' day, and they do not mention the navy in their writings, probably because it is difficult to drag a battleship down Pennsylvania Avenue to enforce a tyranny.

Like I said before, FTGFN, I spent over an hour before providing you examples of the foundation of our constitutional law, as it regards to militias. We are not discussing the issues of treason here - we are discussing the purpose of militias. As I said before, "the purpose of militias - state run military forces - was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. It is essential to understand and agree on this point before any other debate can be served on the matter."

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with militias or the founders' mindset concerning them.

Here is the text of Article 3:

Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nothing here provides any indication, let alone refutation, of the mindset of the founding fathers concerning militias. I provided several examples in the Federalist papers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

337. "State of Mind" ? How about using the Words of the Constitution

You get into the 'state of minds' as it relates what the founders think of a concept (militias) you say no longer exists. The suggestion that the right to bear arms is predicated on the notion that the people should be able to overthrow their own government is not founded by the words of the Constitution, which using your text from the Constitution requires just two witnesses. Do you think the government can come up with that? LOL.

I'd be careful in arguing that the militias were 'federalized' 100 years ago as that may just diminished the argument that anyone other than those who are in the militia (as defined by that act) are now entitled to bear arms. That's going to leave out alot of people.

[gorfle]

347. The state of mind of the founding fathers...

You get into the 'state of minds' as it relates what the founders think of a concept (militias) you say no longer exists. The suggestion that the right to bear arms is predicated on the notion that the people should be able to overthrow their own government is not founded by the words of the Constitution, which using your text from the Constitution requires just two witnesses. Do you think the government can come up with that? LOL.

I'd be careful in arguing that the militias were 'federalized' 100 years ago as that may just diminished the argument that anyone other than those who are in the militia (as defined by that act) are now entitled to bear arms. That's going to leave out alot of people.

The right to bear arms is founded by the words of the constitution, via the second amendment. It refers to militias - militias as they existed at the time of the writing of the constitution. In order to understand what the words of the constitution actually mean you have to understand the context of those words. Again - Article 3 does not speak to the subject at hand - militias.

There is no arguing that militias were federalized in 1903 - that is a fact. Before we move on to the debate about what impact that had on the right of individuals to bear arms, we need to agree on what role the founding fathers intended militias to play.

You still refuse to acknowledge any of Alexander Hamilton's writings on this subject that I have quoted for you. I've provided numerous cited examples of the founding fathers' writings in regards to militias - your only response to this has been to cite an unrelated clause of the constitution.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

326. Reality

You write: You write: 'It (article 3) does not, however, address my assertion that the founding fathers intended that there be a very restricted or non-existent federal army, instead being in favor of state-loyal militias, all for the purposes of preventing a federal tyranny. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about that at all."

That 'very restricted' or 'non-existent federal army' didn't exactly work out under existing Constitutional law .... did it?

[gorfle]

331. Exactly right!

That 'very restricted' or 'non-existent federal army' didn't exactly work out under existing Constitutional law .... did it?

You are exactly right! As I said before, in 1903, and later in 1908, the Dick Act federalized state militias, creating the National Guard, which was, in essence, reserve federal troops. This eliminated the restricted federal army, or rather, it eliminated the state-controlled counterbalance to it.

See:

http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm

Ostensibly, this was done because the states did not uniformly provide for their militia obligations, and many were mere social clubs in an attempt to get those enrolled to actually show up to "drills". The Dick Act provided federal guidelines and money and resources so that there was a standard measure for the state-provided military forces.

But before we move on to discussing the ramification of this event as it relates to the second amendment, we first have to agree on what the founding fathers intended for militias in the first place, because we can't move on to the ramifications of the Dick Act and federalization of the militias with respect to the 2nd Amendment until we agree on what role the militias were intended to serve.

So...are you convinced yet what role the founding fathers intended for the militias to play?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

338. Militias

You write: 'But before we move on to discussing the ramification of this event as it relates to the second amendment, we first have to agree on what the founding fathers intended for militias in the first place, because we can't move on to the ramifications of the Dick Act and federalization of the militias with respect to the 2nd Amendment until we agree on what role the militias were intended to serve.'

Nonsense. If the intention of the founders to have state militias no longer exists, then your argument falls in like a 'house of cards'.

You write: ' So...are you convinced yet what role the founding fathers intended for the militias to play?'

Please do tell me what that was again? Because if it's even remotely based on the notion that the state militias have the authority to overturn the federal government, I'm not buying it.

[gorfle]

348. Tell it to you AGAIN?!?!?!

"Nonsense. If the intention of the founders to have state militias no longer exists, then your argument falls in like a 'house of cards'."

This is exactly the point I am trying to bring you to. The intention of the founders to have state militias DOES still exist, as it always did since they conceived it. But the militias that they intended to exist were dismantled in 1903. The next phase of the discussion revolves around what is the impact on the individual right to bear arms now that the militias are gone? But before we can get to that, we have to agree on what militias were for. I've provided several historical citations that describe precisely what the founding fathers thought militias were for, and all you can say is, "I'm not buying it."

Please do tell me what that was again?

Sorry, but no. I have devoted over 2 hours of research for you and and told you numerous times already what the founding fathers thought it was. There's no sense in my repeating it all over again because it's clear you aren't reading or responding to the historical evidence I am citing for you.

"Because if it's even remotely based on the notion that the state militias have the authority to overturn the federal government, I'm not buying it."

For Pete's Sake! I've just provided you some half-a-dozen direct quotes from one of the AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION that directly demonstrate that that is precisely what they were for, and you aren't buying it?!?!?!?! What the heck do you want?!? For Alexander Hamilton to pop out of the ground and say it from his own mouth?!?!?

Honestly. I've provided you historical evidence to support my case and all you can say is "I'm not buying it.". You don't even have the intellectual fortitude to try and address the passages I have quoted, let alone cite historical counter-evidence to refute it.

Do me a favor: Cut and paste the historical quotes I provided for you and convince me why they don't say what they say. Honestly at this point I think I'm wasting my time because you obviously aren't addressing any of the historical literature I have provided for you.

I spend 2 hours digging up several quotes from the most cited contemporary interpretation of intent for the United States Constitution and you have the gall to ask me to tell it to you all again. Unbelievable.

What do you think militias were for?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

349. Intentions?

You write: 'The intention of the founders to have state militias DOES still exist, as it always did since they conceived it. But the militias that they intended to exist were dismantled in 1903. "

What exactly is your point? That the 1903 law is invalid and unconstitutional because it dismantled state militias as originally conceived? If you have a point, you haven't made it with me.

You can spend two hours 'digging up several quotes'. That's your choice. None of it replaces the words of the Constitution. The notion that any one (of dozen Constitutional authors) quotes should trump or even alone clarify what was voted on by everyone is nonsense. By your own words, the militia they wrote of no longer exists. If you are unhappy debating someone whose 'intellectual fortitude' you are unhappy with, my suggestion is you use the ignore button.

Otherwise, you just sound ....... frustrated and it's really your problem.... not mine.

[jmg257]

351. Sheesh Guys - this really isn't that complicated. The Militia of the several States

had a VERY vital role to play in support of the Constitution and the new govt: specifically "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". It is NO coincidence that their duty, when employed in federal service, matches almost the whole reason for the Constitution, namely: "establish Justice {execute}, insure domestic Tranquility {suppress}, provide for the common defence {repel}, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty {execute, suppress, repel}..."

It is also NO coincidence that the Constitution says the United States "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government {a free State}, and shall protect each of them against Invasion {repel}; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence {suppress}".

In order to have more uniform, more effective Militia of the several States*, so they can better serve in their new federal role, the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States" while "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". Oh, Congress was also "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute, suppress, repel", and the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States**, when called into the actual Service of the United States;". (he was later given power to call forth the Militia too, as provided for by Congress*).


The Militia clause above ALREADY states the Militia is to be armed, & it took the powers from the states and gave them to Congress for coming up with how the individual people WHEN SERVING IN the militias must arm themselves, and how they must be organized and trained*. Congress CANNOT ignore or neglect the Militia of the several States - they are vital, they are permanent, THEY ARE REQUIRED..."to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

The declaratory clause of the 2nd amendment observes & reiterates the importance of the Militia of the several States - they are "NECESSARY for a free State", while the restrictive clause secures the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms {PERIOD}. Apparently(?), possibly(?), service in the Militia of the several States is a primary reason for securing that right, but there is NOTHING in the 2nd, OR the rest of the Constitution, that LIMITS that right only to militia duty. In fact, the 2nd specifically and explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".


*The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
**emphasis shows what "the Militia" is, means the same throughout the constitution.

Note: None of the above replaces words in the Constitution, or depends on anything else other then a quickly enacted Act of Congress to clearly show intent.

[gorfle]

357. All true information but...

Everything you posted is true, jmg257, but that is not the point I am trying to bring home to FTGFN.

He is trying to tie the right to bear arms to militias.

Before we can discuss the relationship between the right to bear arms and militias, we have to understand what role the militias were intended to fulfill.

You are right - it isn't very complicated, but FTGFN won't admit what that role was intended to be, despite my providing numerous historical citations that describe exactly what the founding fathers intended that role to be. All the constitution has to say is, "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", and this is so.

But the real question here is why did the founding fathers work so hard to frame it so that the militias were under the control of the States, and not the Federal government?.

This is the question I am trying to get FTGFN to answer.

[jmg257]

358. We ALL know the answer to why the Militia of the several States had to be well armed & well trained,

because the recourse of an ineffective Militia was that bane of liberty - a standing army.

However, as shown in the the debates in the constitutional convention, where the authority over the militia should lie was definitely not so clearly one-sided.

The power of authority over the Militia should be left with the states because:

1)their consequence would pine away to nothing after sacrificing such power
2)it was figured the States never would, or ought to give up all authority over the militia
3)the fear of creating insuperable objections to the entire plan
4)the states might want to retain authority for defence against invasion and insurrection (later muted)
5)confidence that the states would never give up the power
6)to allow the most influential officers of the militia to be appointed by the Genl. Government was considered absolutely inadmissible
7)distrust of the central govt
8)the central govt would ignore the militias more then the states

The power being given completely to the new governement was better because:

1)dissmilarity in the different militias produced serious mischiefs
2)the common govt had the care of the general defence
3)the 2 govts were not enemies of each other, there was no reason for distrust
4)the states ignored their militias
5)discilpline if the militia was a national concern, and so should be provided for in the national constitution
6)splitting the authority was an incurable evil, there was no room for such distrust of the Genl govt


Seems the militia clause A1S8C16 was very much a compromise.

[gorfle]

359. FTGFN does not know that...

>because the recourse of an ineffective Militia was that bane of liberty - a standing army.

You know that. I know that. But FTGFN has yet to admit it. In fact he denies it.

[jmg257]

362. So, forget him. I am very interested in how the Dick Act affected the system of govt, & especially

it's impact on the 2nd.

What do you think?

[gorfle]

381. What I think...

I think that it has no effect on the individual right to bear arms.

For two reasons.

First of all, the Militia Act of 1903 (The Dick Act) actually defined two militias - the organized and the unorganized militia.

From:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20080108.aspx

January 8, 2008: Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)

The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.

Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.

The usual argument that folks like FTGFN advocate is that the right to bear arms is reserved only to militias, which they take to be today's National Guard. Thus if you aren't in the National Guard, you aren't in the militia, and you don't have the right to bear arms.

From the above, we see first of all that there is also the unorganized militia, made up of all adult males between the ages of 17 and 45. They, too, should also have the right to bear arms.

But my contention is that even if this were not so, and the 2nd Amendment only applied to organized militias, the intent of the founding fathers is clear - they wanted the people to be armed as a counterbalance to federal tyranny. Thus even if the militias are gone, the right must revert back to the people - militias or no.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.

My contention is that even if there are no militias whatsoever, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be preserved to preserve the intent of the founding fathers that the people will have the ability to resist tyranny.

[jmg257]

383. Agreed, my right to keep and bear arms is no more dependent on a militia then

my right to free speech is dependent on the press. There are NO qualifiers given for the restrictive clause, only one of the reasons for securing that right.

I would also add that my right to arms in common military use IS secured by the militia observation in the 2nd, and my role in the militia of the United States, and is 100% in line with the intent of the framers that the people always be able to "out-gun" the standing army.

[gorfle]

355. Frustrated indeed!

You write: 'The intention of the founders to have state militias DOES still exist, as it always did since they conceived it. But the militias that they intended to exist were dismantled in 1903. "

What exactly is your point? That the 1903 law is invalid and unconstitutional because it dismantled state militias as originally conceived? If you have a point, you haven't made it with me.

As I said, I have not yet moved onto my next point of discussion, because first we have to agree on what purpose the militias were intended to serve before 1903. Once I can get you to say what they were for, then I'll be happy to move on to further discussions about the right to bear arms.

So I'll ask you again:

What do you think the militias were for?

You can spend two hours 'digging up several quotes'. That's your choice. None of it replaces the words of the Constitution.

Nor were they intended to. You originally asked the question, "Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?". In order to answer your question, we have to understand what the founding fathers intended Organized Militias to be. The Constitution does not provide this information, and therefore we must look to contemporary writing to find out. The Federalist Papers are the most cited documents to provide insight into the intent of the United States Constitution.

The notion that any one (of dozen Constitutional authors) quotes should trump or even alone clarify what was voted on by everyone is nonsense.

Then please provide counter-examples contradict my assertion of the founding fathers' intent for militias.

[gorfle]

382. The sound of crickets chirping...

Chirp Chirp Chirp.

[hansberrym]

32. Have you read the brief?

From DC's Brief:
The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes. Instead, it protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Yes.......

.......so ?

[hansberrym]

35. Then why do you say "wrong question" ? The DC Brief insists that

the right is protected only in service of an organized militia:

"Instead, it protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia."


Do you disagree with the DC strategy/theory of the amendment?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Certainly One Interpretation

.... using the words of the Second Amendment.

[hansberrym]

59. So why did you write "wrong question" ? Given that you actually read the brief,

why do you think it "wrong" to answer the question as so framed.


Should DC have argued differently?

[L1A1Rocker]

65. Because

your colosal ignorance of the subject matter begs to differ.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Gosh.........

Sticks and stones.

If you are going to call me ignorant in repeated posts, I would encourage you to start using spell check. It'll help give your claims of intellectual superiority more credibility.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

191. You only prove it yourself

You only prove you own ignorance by a complete lack of knowledge on what you are talking about.

Oh, to attack a persons spelling, what a truly sad way of trying to deflect from the issues when you cannot form an intelligent response. Please stop the personal attacks.

[L1A1Rocker]

60. Valid question

You (in your narrow little world) don't want to answer it. Typical eletist snobery.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Yea.....

Don't you hate it when the 'elite' demand the right to vote.

[L1A1Rocker]

66. No

only when they try to hijack a thread for there own selfish purposes. Want to talk about voting start your own thread.

[pipoman]

10. I am as anxious for this as for the '08 campaign

[Tejas]

14. So, who will give a straight answer

when the question "What's your view of the recent ruling on DC by SCOTUS......." pops up?

[pipoman]

19. Dems Gravel and Kucinich..Pugs Paul and McCain

if you mean who will answer honestly what their feelings are.

[jmg257]

11. Some observations and key points...

Much of it actually made sense re: "the well regulated Militia", it's role, and the people's role in it. They once and for all got past many lies of the antis with what these words actually mean. They just left out all the comments - BY THOSE INVOLVED - about "private", "personal", "inherent", "absolute", &c when talking about the BoR. They also fantasized about or outright ignored what "defence of themselves" might mean, and kind of forgot that the people just may want to defend themselves OUTSIDE THEIR HOMES, especially in DC, since the ban is such an obvious failure in it's supposed purpose (i.e. after 30yrs, still tops in several violent crime catagories).

They surprisingly brought it up, but also seriously & obviously downplayed Madison's original proposal and the importance of the semi-colon--": "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated being the ...". CLEARLY a separate idea here, as that is exactly how the clauses in the Constitution are written! They lose big time here...

They didn't get TOO far into how the respondent (and most of us) are NOT in the "new" Militia (NG), but surely inferred it as important. They also pointed out how if the feds ignore the constitutional Militia, then the State's have the power. They didn't add that if the States ignore THE Militia, it is up to the people (we are where all those powers orginated from after all), as the Constitution & 2nd says - OUR freedom depends on it. And they shied away from the idea, but didn't truly hide the whole "people are to arm themselves" intent, and that Congress' "power to provide for" meant coming up with general guidelines.

They chose to focus on militia vs private meaning of the 2nd, yet they also recognized that the individual right to arms exists outside the 2nd - then they downplayed that right, and "it's scope". Seems a move here to leave the right open to any restrictions, and to prevent the govt from doing it's primary duty - securing it.


I LOVE this...

Quote:
National limitations on what fire-arms may be possessed privately could conflict with a state’s ability to call forth a militia armed as the state sees fit. As the majority below recognized, the Amendment ensures “that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.”

and

Quote:
Fifth, the majority relied on the words “right of the people” (PA18a-19a, 27a), but recognizing such a right does not define its scope. The question is not whether individuals can enforce the right protected by the Second Amendment. The question instead is whether this right is limited to the possession of militia-related weapons.

So, besides the glaring ommissions & conflicts in their argument overall, they confirmed (as already decided in Miller they quote so often) that military style assault weapons and accoutrement bans, full-auto restrictions, and most pistol regulations ARE unconstitutional(!!) AND that the people DO INDEED have an individual right to KBA.
__________________

Also...

Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. {Penn Declaration of Rights}

Quote:
(“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . .”) (Pennsylvania ratifying minority);


These are a couple more key sections in the DC brief. pp50 & 52. Most of their entire argument is that the 2nd is applicable for protecting the people as part of the well regulated Militia only. They try to prove quite strongly the "strictly military meaning" that the words "bear arms" have. {“ne does not bear Arms against a rabbit” or an intruder, Garry Wills, To Keep and Bear Arms"} Yet right here, in 2 clear and concise examples of the time they themselves quote, "bear arms" is used explicitly to refer to self defense AND "the killing of game". They lose big time here as well.

[hansberrym]

13. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

1. The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes. Instead, it protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.

- there is no "ONLY in service of an organized militia" clause.

- nor is there even an "in service of an organized militia" clause.

- the exclusivity which DC attributes to the text in not warranted as there are no qualifiers on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the actual text -though DC repeatedly adds such qualifiers "as part of a well-regulated militia" and "in service of an organized militia".

- History tells us that even those on the alarm or call lists (meaning those who are not in actual service but liable to be called) had a duty to keep arms. Again see US v. Miller discussion of various state militia acts. See also Fed #29 which DC references as example of what a well-regulated militia meant to the framers, but which DC ignores when seeking to know who was to be armed. It then becomes an exceedingly silly argument to claim that the right to keep arms is less broad than the duty.

- See VA militia act cited in US v/ Miller in which "the militia west of the blue ridge" were not required to keep muskets but could use rifles to satisfy their miltia duty to keep arms. This is a clear accomodation and recognition that those living west of the Blue Ridge and thus likely to be earning their living as hunters could use those same private arms which they used for private purposes when called to militia service.


The first clause—“ well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—speaks only of militias, with not a hint about private uses of firearms. A well-regulated militia is the antithesis of an unconnected group of individuals, each choosing unilaterally whether to own a firearm, what kind to own, and for what purposes.

- The first clause consists of a noun and a present participle which modifies that noun. The first clause is Absolute Construction and can not be said to qualify the subject of the main clause.

- A select militia or a disarmed militia would be antithetical to what the founders intended. See discussion of militia in US v. Miller.

- The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to form armed groups.


The second clause—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—equally addresses the possession and use of weapons in connection with militia service. In 1791, “Arms” and “bear Arms” were military terms describing the use of weapons in the common defense, and the word “keep” was used in connection with militiamen’s possession of the arms necessary for militia service.

- But "bear arms" was also used in reference to self defense and private uses such as hunting in late 1700s and early 1800s discussions of the right to bear arms, which is the proper context for examining what those words mean in the Second Amendment. DC argues for an exclusive meaning, not merely that "bear arms" was used most often in reference to service in the militia, but that such is the ONLY plausible meaning. They do this by referencing only discussions of militia service rather than "the right to bear arms". Such an interpretive method strips the words "bear arms" from the context of the protection of a right. I don't think anyone would be silly enough to claim that the Bill of Rights, or the Second Amendment specifically, does not concern rights.

- In terms of logic, the existence of counter examples is enough to disprove the claim of exclusivity.

- While it is certainly true that the militia acts (see US v. Miller) required those enrolled to "keep" arms, it is almost laughable to suggest that that is the only possible meaning. Blackstone lists the right to keep arms as a right of citizens for self protection.


Taken together, the two clauses permit only a militia-related reading. To conclude that the Framers intended to protect private uses of weapons, the majority below read the entire first clause to be extraneous and the second to be in tension with the natural, military meaning of “bear Arms.” If that had been the Framers’ intent, they would have omitted the first clause and used non-military language in the second.

That the first clause provides context and a ratioanale for the guarantee that follows does not render the first phrase "extraneous" or meaningless. DC sets up a false dichotmy in which the first phrase is either "extraneous" or must be a qualifier on the right that follows. That simply ignores the notmal fuction of Absolute Construction which is to provide justification and context to the main clause.

Nor is there any tension in a right to keep arms for ones own defense and other private uses as well as a right to bear arms in defense of oneself, the state, or the United States. The imagined tension comes from an insistence that the amendment is exclusively concerned with militiary matters -but such tension flows from the conclusion rather than the text and DC's argument here is circular.


History confirms the District’s reading. The primary concerns that animated those who supported the Second Amendment were that a federal standing army would prove tyrannical and that the power given to the federal government in the Constitution’s Militia Clauses could enable it not only to federalize, but also to disarm state militias. There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment. The drafting history and recorded debate in Congress confirm that the Framers understood its military meaning and ignored proposals to confer an express right to weapon possession unrelated to militia service.

The facts are at odds with DC'a assertions: the very first commentary (Tench Coxe) on what became the second amendment spoke of protecting the right to keep and bear "their private arms" -and said nothing of protecting only state militias or only the arms of those persons enrolled in the militia.

Fed 46 undercuts both asertions. Madison begins by reminding the enemies of the constitution that the relative power of the Federal and State governments is not the main concern. Later in that essay Madison says the people of Europe living under tyranny might "throw off their yokes with this aid alone" meaning having the avantage of being armed but w/o subordinate governments to organize the resistance -so it can hardly be maintained that Madison thought the people would be armed ONLY through state organized militias.

Hamilton in Fed 28 makes the point even more bluntly -that the people might need to take up arms to protect themselves from EITHER the Federal or State governemnts.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. I'm Kind of Digging that Out of a 50 Page Brief

.........that's the best you can do.

LOL.

[Tejas]

46. You may have missed it but, the subject isn't "America hates DC"

The brief is flawed worse than your drive-bys on taxation etc.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Talk about a Gratuitous Drive-By Post with So Much Substance (Not)

Who the f*ck said or even implied "America hates DC" except perhaps you?

[Tejas]

89. Your "nanna nanna boohoo" replies deserve more? (laughs)

[Tejas]

90. That said, all you do is blame us for not saving you

But no, we hate DC because our #1 goal in life isn't to cure your taxation problem.

Good luck with that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. Right..........

......but you have no problem 'curing' our gun problem. Got it.

PS - Our 'taxation problem' is your problem...

[Tejas]

102. Now you're starting to get the picture

But then again, thought you were getting it earlier.

Our "immigration problem" is yours also, but contrary to your wishes we talk about gun-related things here.

My apologies, but I don't own this website or else I'd change everything just for you. Honest!

:sarcasm:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. ??????

??????

Oh.....nevermind....really.

[L1A1Rocker]

202. Yet another

illustration of how you refuse to get it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. Consent of the Governed

I think it's funny and ironic that folks like you wrap yourself in a document that was created in response to a government that taxed their citizens without giving them representation in their own government and yet you cannot acknowledge your case would have more merit if your government and its laws came with the consent of the governed. I'm not the one who needs a civics lesson.

[Tejas]

92. Speaking of aknowledgment

Maybe you need to aknowledge the fact that firearms ownership might have something to do with yourself someday, that your taxation-hell will be way down on the list of priorities.

What are you goind to have...a newspaper to swat somebody with?

Your choice!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Swat Yourself

HELLO: Anyone home?

You write: 'Maybe you need to aknowledge the fact that firearms ownership might have something to do with yourself someday, that your taxation-hell will be way down on the list of priorities.'

Firearms ownership DOES have something to do with me today and that is why the DC law was enacted by the people of DC.

I'll leave you to prioritize the right to vote differently. My guess is you might be less concerned about ONE law if ALL of your laws were without your consent.

[Tejas]

98. instant gratification might work for you

but you really should concern yourself for what's down the road.

Look what your "enacted by the people of DC" has gotten you, you're happy with the outcome up to this point in time? Surely you wouldn't brag about your murder rate for the past 30 years?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Murder Rate

Do you agree that whether or not DC has a bad government is really best left up to the people of the District of Columbia? It takes a certain amount of arrogance to think you know better than the people most effected by gun violence and murder in DC how best to reduce gun violence and murder. I may or may not agree with every DC law, but I support our right of self determination and self government.

[Tejas]

115. Wrong question

Do you feel that what you and your exalted Fenty demand should be the standard for the entire country?

Do you feel that the simple requests made by Parker, Heller etc are ridiculous?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. You Presume Too Much

In fact, as the District has argued, it is a unique jurisdiction.

The Court could easily rule that because we are not a state, the law applies just to the District, an argument furthered by the District's position and legal arguments.

[Tejas]

119. How many times

are you going to try and apply the nonsense that the BOR doesn't apply to DC in this case?

To that end, you would suggest that if DC banned protests in the streets then that would be a lawful decree.



Man, you sure come up with some doozy's!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Doozies Indeed

You don't live here do you?

You still don't get it..... we have no f*cking rights in the District. You act like it's some HUGE injustice that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is not defended. I have yet to hear you acknowledge that every time ONE of our laws is overturned by your Congress, it is a HUGE injustice or to acknowledge that every dollar stolen from our paychecks WITHOUT the right to vote for a member of House of Representatives or a member of the SENATE is a HUGE injustice.

But heh.... keep living in the land of denial.

PS - protest permits are regularly denied in this city depending on which street it is and/or what Congressman raises enough hell.

[L1A1Rocker]

127. What tripe

The residenc of DC do have rights. Where do you think Maranda(sp?) came from?

[Tejas]

132. L1 - FTGFN still trying to get US to apologize for HIS apathy about taxes

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. DC CItizens Do NOT Have the Same Rights as You

You act like it's some HUGE injustice that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is not defended. I have yet to hear you acknowledge that every time ONE of our laws is overturned by your Congress, it is a HUGE injustice or to acknowledge that every dollar stolen from our paychecks WITHOUT the right to vote for a member of House of Representatives or a member of the SENATE is a HUGE injustice.

We do not have the same rights as you and that is the injustice.

[Tejas]

137. and that is what we hope the SCOTUS will fix

but if someone were to ask me why you so strongly resist restoration of a basic right with so much determination, I really don't know what to tell them.

All I can figure is you hate the idea of your fellow citizens having the ability to defend themselves in their own homes. No idea why you hate it so much, but oh well.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

138. Why Don't You Tell Me Why You Think So Many DC Citizens

........... think the law is appropriate?

[Tejas]

142. because they're clueless?.....don't care about their fellow human being?

What did I win?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. And that is the Best You Can Do

Such is the intellectual prowess of your arguments.

[L1A1Rocker]

147. I doubt

that is the best he can do. But it IS the best you deserve.

[Tejas]

152. No, and I know it's only part of the potential that Heller

could bring, but I'm just sitting here wishing that DC residents had the same gun-rights that I do. Go figure, but FTGFN seems to disagree with me on that.

[Tejas]

148. Yes, beats your evasions on Heller

[fightthegoodfightnow]

139. And Still No Call to Restore the Right to Vote

Seems to me that if I had to choose between what you want you think is in my best interest and what I think is in my best interest, I'll go with the right to vote.

[L1A1Rocker]

144. Look

You continue to try and change this thread into a debate about what YOU want to talk about. It has no place on the gun forum. If you would like to start your own thread on poor DC and how it is being picked on PM me the link and I will be happy to educate you on the basic tenants of a Representative Republic and how NO-ONE gets to vote for the president, etc etc.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

149. LOOK

Your arguments that YOU have more of an interest in upholding or overturning the DC law is LUDICROUS since the law applies only to the District of Columbia and you do NOT live here.

Try starting a thread about gun laws in your state and I promise to ignore it and you.

[Tejas]

153. So....

you really and truly believe that a SCOTUS decision (Heller) could never have bearing on anything that ever happens anywhere in the US?

Forever and ever?

Till death do us part?

Heller is DC's business and DC's business ONLY?



stick a fork in him, he's done.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

155. Support DC's Position

Of course it could, but if you support the District's position, it would not have to.

[L1A1Rocker]

158. Yep

He has no clue that a SCOTUS decision is a national issue!

I stand by my last assessment of him - pathetic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

165. See Post 155

Of course it could have national ramifications, but if you support the District's position, it would not have to.

All you have to do is support the District's position.

[L1A1Rocker]

157. Funny post there

Admit nothing (don't respond to my comments as you cannot)
Dennie everything (saying that I have no stake in a SCOTUS ruling)
Make counter accusations (Telling me to start my own gun thread when I actually posting in one)

You sir a laughable!

[Tejas]

145. You have every right to get off your apathetic rear

[L1A1Rocker]

159. And

at least start you own thread to talk about what is bothering you. Please stop riding others coattails to make your openion heard.

[L1A1Rocker]

189. And yet again

You fail to adhere to the OP and want to talk about something else. Please, if you want to talk about our representative republic please start another thread in the appropriate forum. Send me a PM even and I'll be happy to stop by and debate it with you. You may have valid arguments but this is NOT the place for it.

[L1A1Rocker]

126. Not likly

based on the question posed by SCOTUS itself.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

150. Read the Question Posed Before the Court

It is indeed possible.

[L1A1Rocker]

161. You mean this

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Now everyone can read it easily and see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

162. Look At You!!!!

Good Job ! I always knew you could cut and paste.

Now when I wrote: 'The Court could easily rule that because we are not a state, the law applies just to the District, an argument furthered by the District's position and legal arguments'..... do you think the fact that the question references .... and here's the tricky part ...... D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02....... it could make a ruling SPECIFICALLY regarding DC's law ?

[L1A1Rocker]

173. I'll consed that they COULD.

But then again frogs wouldn't bump their ass when they hopped either. I believe that both have equal odds of happening.

Of course those codes are from DC because that is where the case originates FROM. Your bases holds no water because had the case originated in a state they would still have listed that states laws. Why? Because they have to address some sort of law and it just so happens to be DCs law in this case. You seem to be leaving out this part of the question "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals". Of course you seem to be leaving most all of the question don't you.

Roberts is on record as saying that SCOTUS needs to visit the 2A and they now have a perfectly "clean" case to do it with. They have even crafted their own question.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

174. The Question

You write: 'You seem to be leaving out this part of the question "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals".

Not at all. It's a QUESTION before the court; not a ruling from you.

In addition, the court has been known to restrict it's ruling to specific law in a specific jurisdiction and there certainly an argument can be made that DC is a special jurisdiction. As for Roberts, I'll leave you to think he has made up his mind before hearing the case. No doubt he and Scalia are good friends of your position. Personally, I would admit that too loud on a DU board.

[Tejas]

175. Scalia (there, it's been typed for all to see)

Scalia leans towards RKBA, you have a problem with that?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

176. Problem?

Nah.... I just don't consider Scalia a friend.

[L1A1Rocker]

178. He is defiantly a friend

of the Second Amendment. And by logical progression a friend of this thread. The is the "Gungeon" after all. You seem to have missed that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

180. I Haven't Missed Anything

........other than the two posts you have made that have been deleted by the moderator.

Do you think Scalia will fairly hear the merits of the case before making up his mind?

[L1A1Rocker]

182. considering

how often you go off topic from the OP I figured you needed reminding.

I have some posts deleted? I'll have to check on that, thanks.

I believe that Scalia is very well versed with the writings of our founding fathers. I believe he will fairly apply them to the laws in question on the Heller case.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

184. Right..........

but that's not what I asked.

Do you think Scalia will fairly hear the merits of the case BEFORE making up his mind?

[Tejas]

185. Yes

He will, he's not some DC puppet.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

186. Strings

You write: 'He will, he's not some DC puppet.'

What the heck is that? DC can't pull anyone's strings.

[Tejas]

187. If you honestly believe that Fenty is his own man

then I have some Jackelope furs to sell you, fresh from the West texas breeders.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

188. This Much I Know

He's the Mayor.

[L1A1Rocker]

193. Go back and re read the last sentence

of the previous post. I'm not going to re-type it if you didn't bother to read it in the first place.

[L1A1Rocker]

183. I don't see that I have deleted threads.

Could you or someone else possible help me out here?

[L1A1Rocker]

177. I find

their position on the 2A to be dead on!!! Why do you seem to think that is a problem?

SCOTUS "has been known" to do a lot of things. You and I disagree on what the are going to on this.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

196. Their Position?

Hello...... they don't have a position because they haven't heard the case or made a ruling.

[L1A1Rocker]

200. They are humans

that have many papers written on various subjects. Ah HELLO, HELLO, any home? Apparently not. Try to educate yourself before inserting you foot so deeply.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

206. Got It

Scalia has decided how to vote before hearing the case. Does Scalia know that? Why don't you just ask the court to make their ruling today. That's how absurd your post is.

You will never find a Supreme Court justice who will tell you s/he has decided a case, ANY case, before hearing it, but you go right ahead and prove me wrong by finding one case where a Justice has ruled before hearing the case.

As for your funny remark about getting an education, you just sound like you are choking on your own foot. Chew some leather.

[L1A1Rocker]

208. I have now responded twice already

Now go back and read them and stop making things up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

209. Your Posts Speak for Themselves

Now go back and read them.

[L1A1Rocker]

212. I wish you would

You don't seem to have a clue.

[Will E Orwontee]

245. Live up to your name!

FTGFN, are you going to answer my posts above?

What is the value of having a position if it can not be effectively defended?

It is a simple premise that you apparently want to avoid addressing . . .

How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?

And the simple question:

Who do you argue is the protected entity of the 2nd Amendment; who can legitimately claim the 2nd as defeating federal overstepping of authority?

1) State governments
2) Individual citizens
3) Other (please explain)

[Name removed]

262. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Will E Orwontee]

290. Are you the membership police?

I have never had another account. I lurk here from time to time but I am really active on a half dozen other political boards and a half dozen surf fishing boards so I don't post much here. I have been involved in discussing gun rights online for over ten years; I started on talk.politics.guns on USENET but with the more user friendly software of the webboards I don't bother with the newsgroup, with a busy life it was unmanageable keeping up with one's messages buried under a thousand posts a day. Multiply this thread by three every day!

The quality and scholarship of the discussion is definitely much poorer now on the web; it is a rare anti-gunner indeed that has a command of the case law and is motivated to write in the depth that a full debate of this subject demands. It has actually become very hard to find a good debate anymore on gun rights even on boards that have gun specific forums. I guess the knowledgeable anti's have resigned themselves to the fact that they have been arguing the wrong side.

Now the mantle has been assumed by people like you, completely ignorant of the fundamental principles but well versed in hyperbole and expert in bellicose attitude.

But it's still fun . . .

[fightthegoodfightnow]

292. Golly

You write: '.............it is a rare anti-gunner indeed that has a command of the case law and is motivated to write in the depth that a full debate of this subject demands.'

Golly. LOL. Whatever.

I for one saw nothing in your post that elevated the quality of the debate with case law or reasoned arguments for your position.

You write: 'I guess the knowledgeable anti's have resigned themselves to the fact that they have been arguing the wrong side.'

This followed by 'Now the mantle has been assumed by people like you, completely ignorant of the fundamental principles but well versed in hyperbole and expert in bellicose attitude."

Sorry......... but I really had to laugh at that. No 'hyperbole' or 'expert in bellicose attitude' there. LOL.

[L1A1Rocker]

295. Bellicose attitude

Let's see, bellicose attitude = Golly. LOL. Whatever.

Thanks for the example.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

298. One Liners

I heard there is a writers strike if you want to cross a picket line to get a job.

But heh... good job on calling him on the carpet for his hypocrisy (not).

How are you doing coming up with something related to gun ownership in DC?

[Tejas]

317. I'll be your huckleberry

Since you now insist (at least for a post or two) on talking about the subject at hand, the SCOTUS will probably decide against DC and gun ownership will then be allowed to proliferate in DC. But do not worry, the Potomac will not breach her banks due to any extra blood running into her, her level might actually fall a few inches.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

319. If the Solution is More Guns to End Gun Violence

.......... why does the United States have more guns and we have failed to reduce gun violence? In fact, how do you explain that we have more gun violence than any other country in the world?

[Tejas]

321. Your "Brady facts" betray you (again)

"In fact, how do you explain that we have more gun violence than any other country in the world?"

I'll even use statistics from the largest gun-grabber of them all:
We are ranked by the United Nations at 24th behind other major countries.



eta: the Wiki article is in dispute but the FBI statistics should be able to stand on their own. Russia is 4 times higher, Venezuela 6 times higher.



eta #2: Get off of Brady's teat, the truth will set you free.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

322. Denial

I didn't quote anything from Brady so let's start by you letting go of your biases.

Please site where the number of legally owned guns per capita is higher than in the US and provide some specific links to your citations.

PS - I haven't been on the Brady site for.... gosh....what .......... months.

Thanks for pointing out you dispute the Wiki article, which evidently, without looking at it, supports my point of view. LOL.

[Tejas]

327. Indeed, Brady incarnate

Didn't say you quoted Brady, but by pulling your "facts" out of your.......you then do indeed think and talk exactly like them.

"Please site where the number of legally owned guns per capita is higher than in the US and provide some specific links to your citations."

So, you want to change the subject to "number of guns"? Sad try and won't work. My answer to your BS gun-violence statistic was a factual answer.



"Thanks for pointing out you dispute the Wiki article, which evidently, without looking at it, supports my point of view. LOL."

Pretty much another one of your troll-responses, as the Wiki page does not support your Brady BS in any shape or form. Is that all you can do?


......and from your earlier post:
"we have more gun violence than any other country in the world"

Link please?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

329. Anchor Yourself

You write: 'Didn't say you quoted Brady, but by pulling your "facts" out of your.......you then do indeed think and talk exactly like them."

What a crock of sh*t. Try sticking to the post and answering the question.

You write 'So, you want to change the subject to "number of guns"? Sad try and won't work. My answer to your BS gun-violence statistic was a factual answer.

No, my original question was "why does the United States have more guns and we have failed to reduce gun violence? In fact, how do you explain that we have more gun violence than any other country in the world?"

And you have failed to answer it.

If Wiki doesn't have anything to do with it, then exactly why did you reference it? Right.......so you can characterize my response as being a 'troll-response.' LOL.

Anyone who denies that the US doesn't rank as the country with the highest gun violence in the world isn't anchored in reality.

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

339. Laughing Very Hard

The fact that your data is over eight years old, lists homocides rather than what I said.... crimes committed with gun violence and lists less than one third of the 192 member states in the United Nations diminishes the significants of your link.

You write: 'Quit being a Republican pawn with the Bradyisms." Hhumm.... I get the fact you hate the Brady Act, but for your education, the act was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

[Tejas]

342. #38 - Much more than what you posted (which has been nothing)

If you were to click the links to the right of each country, it breaks them down for you in exactly the manner you requested. Shows gun crime numbers etc (sigh)

Now, would you mind posting something to back up your claim that the US leads the world in gun murders?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

344. To Answer Your Question

The fact that your data is over eight years old and lists less than one third of the 192 member states in the United Nations diminishes the significants of your link.

PS - Did you read the comments at the bottom of that page?

You write: 'Quit being a Republican pawn with the Bradyisms." Hhumm.... I get the fact you hate the Brady Act, but for your education, the act was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President

[Tejas]

364. non-responsive rhetoric, waste of good space

Complete waste of time to ask you for proof to back up any of your ramblings, but I (as have others) have come to expect nothing less.

Who mentioned the "Brady Act"? Wasn't me, but in your usual fashion you simply start babbling about any unrelated thing that pops in your head.

Come back when you find something to prove your Bradyisms, you'll probably be able to prove the Moon is indeed made of green cheese much quicker.

[L1A1Rocker]

122. NO

You are confusing true democracy with representative democracy. In true democracy you can put to a vote that all women shale submit to the will of men. Democracy rules right? No, you MUST have respect for basic human rights. So we have a system of democracy WITH respect for basic human rights with the hope that the courts will get it right.

That is where we are with the Parker/Heller case right now. DC voted into office elected officials who, as representatives of the public, put into effect (in my opinion) draconian gun laws. The platifs in DC have asked for a redress of their grievances claiming that their basic human rights have been wrongly taking away from them. Now it is a battle in the courts and SCOTUS will have the final word.

This is a wonderful country we live in where such perceived wrongs can be addressed in a peaceful way.

[krispos42]

334. Your right of self-deterimation and self-governence must be Constitutional

And politics does sometimes keep the "best" solution to a particular problem from being instituted. Fanatical adherence to abstract political idealology keeps marijuana illegal, the War on Drugs an endless drain on our economy, budget, and society, keeps universal single-payer healthcare in the distant future, taxes the middle-class and deficit-spends for the benefit of the rich... you get the idea.

There are hundreds of thousands of cities, states, provinces, counties, and nations that have, are, and will continue to struggle with violence and murder and crime. The obligation of the DC (or indeed, any) government is to look at what they have been doing to constantly re-evaluate if a) it's working, and b) if there's a way it can be done better. b) includes looking at other governments facing similar problems and seeing if they have any ideas that worked well, or worked badly.

[beevul]

203. Open mouth, Insert foot.

"My guess is you might be less concerned about ONE law if ALL of your laws were without your consent."

You claim your laws are, yet you aren't.

But then, you also claim that they aren't.


"...and that is why the DC law was enacted by the people of DC."

So which way is it?


Are ALL your laws in DC written without your consent, or are there really laws enacted by the people of DC?


Can't have it both ways, no matter how many words you use, or the order you use them in.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

220. Ever Heard of a Republic?

You ask: 'Are ALL your laws in DC written without your consent, or are there really laws enacted by the people of DC?'

ALL of our local laws are subject to rejection by a legislative body we did not elect. Period.

[L1A1Rocker]

232. Broken record again?

Please go back and read the OP. You really should start a post on what you want to talk about.

[krispos42]

353. You've set yourself up...

so that the ONLY way firearm ownership will have something to do with you, ever, will be you hunting or sport shooting with a long gun, or a criminal pointing a gun at you.

You when you whine about "only criminals have guns!", you're reaping the exact field you've sowed. You've set up the system so that honest citizens have no chance of self-defense with a firearm, and use that as a justification to say a) people never realistically use guns in self-defense, and b) only criminals use guns, so we have to ban them.

Your arguments are as relevent as Bush's about staying in Iraq. "We have to stay to fight the terrorists!", "Iraq is the central front on terror", etc., etc., etc., all the while ignoring the fact that a) terrorists weren't there until AFTER we invaded, and b) we're drawing and creating terrorists by being there.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. The Court that is Going to Hear this Case

......was chosen by a government without voting representation from the District of Columbia.

[Tejas]

93. ...and I predict

that court will decide against the .gov and antis of the District of Columbia.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. No Surprise There

It easy for the Court of King George to make a decision contrary to the interests of DC when his parliament wasn't elected by us.

[Tejas]

99. Your murder rate is the direct result of YOUR "interests", not

the result of "King George".

You've had 30 years to do something about it.











edit: has = had

[fightthegoodfightnow]

101. Tejas

Please do tell me where you live so our city council and mayor can fix your problems.

[Tejas]

108. Is that a threat?

Please, PLEASE don't put yourself out. I think we can do just fine without help like yours or Fenty's!


"We are here to help you"


Good gravy, go wipe your jackboots because you just stepped in it bad. Wait, on second thought, throw them and your uniform away because I don't think they're salvageable...heck, you might consider incineration.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. Yawn

A threat? Good grief.

See that's how you gun advocates think. Give me a break. You know where I live and seem to have a great interest in the affairs of my community. The irony is you can't see that unless you live here, it's none of your business.

You write: ' I think we can do just fine without help like yours or Fenty's!"

I think we can do just fine without the likes of you and your help.

[Tejas]

113. We see how good of a job you've done

"Only" x-amount of murders is a good thing? That some of those homicides could've been prevented had law-abiding citizens been armed is bad?

You no doubt would be more than comfortable if your or California's laws were the law of the land, hence your real problem with understanding the impact of Heller.

[Tejas]

116. ...and you have the nerve to

chastize the rest of the country for dabbling in your business, but in the same breath you harp on the rest of the country for not doing something about your taxation?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

120. California?

No.........as you may have read from the brief...... the District of Columbia is a unique jurisdiction not unlike any in the nation and the Court could easily make a ruling that the law could be Constitutionally upheld on that basis alone. In addition, the Court could rule that if Congress wanted to, it could easily enact a law overturning DC's law, because of that unique status (which would be impossible to do to just one State under the equal protection clause).

[Tejas]

128. still another non-responsive answer (imagine that!)

That was a characterization of your nirvana mindset that you would wish upon the rest of the country, just as Feinstein, McCarthy etc would so love to accomplish.

Congrats, another good waste of a perceived point of technicallity by you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

133. Try Responding with an Argument

If you have something specific to say that might foster your case regarding my post (a copy of which is below) other than a 'non-responsive' nirvana characterization, please say it or make your case. Otherwise, you just sound silly.

No.........as you may have read from the brief...... the District of Columbia is a unique jurisdiction not unlike any in the nation and the Court could easily make a ruling that the law could be Constitutionally upheld on that basis alone. In addition, the Court could rule that if Congress wanted to, it could easily enact a law overturning DC's law, because of that unique status (which would be impossible to do to just one State under the equal protection clause).

[Tejas]

135. the "pot" is now demanding answers ?

Looking at your past performance in regards to answering questions put directly to you earlier in this thread, and then to put up with your diversions into taxes-oh-the-noes, consider yourself lucky to get the time of day.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Got It

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[L1A1Rocker]

192. Oh that is so mature

As you once said in this thread. That does nothing to elevate the debate.

[L1A1Rocker]

130. They could

but I see that being included in the brief as Brady Inc damage control. Many are predicting this to be a big 2A win and Brady at el are trying to limit the scope of a SCOTUS ruling to only apply to DC. Of course that is my opinion.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

163. The Court has Generally Limited the Scope of Most Rulings to a Narrow Ruling

Abortion is a prime example.

Despite the wet dreams of both sides, my money is the ruling will be someone narrow regardless of the outcome.

[L1A1Rocker]

179. That is correct

We do disagree however on this case as the court has also made very broad wide reaching decisions like in Marinade. We have not had a decent ruling on 2A since before Miller in 39. I do not include Miller as decent because Miller's lawyer didn't show up. I believe that SCOTUS wants to make a 2A ruling. Maybe it is my on biased wishes but we should know by April this year.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

181. Perhaps

..... but I'll wait for the ruling. I think it's a reach to think the court ever wants to make a broad ruling.

[L1A1Rocker]

243. They did in Maranda

Will see what they don on this one in about 4 months.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

103. King George

It's easy for the Court of King George to make a decision contrary to the interests of DC when his parliament wasn't elected by us.

[Tejas]

110. repeat of #91 & #97 (please use new mat'l) n/t

[L1A1Rocker]

125. What wonderful

use of hyperbole. But has no place in this thread.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Perhaps You are Not Aware

The number of homicides has been cut in half in the last 15 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Dchomicidechart.svg

[Tejas]

112. Read it and weep.

Your murder rate still higher than 25 years ago

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

As DC has with their brief, play with the numbers any way your heart desires.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Get a Kleenix

In 2006, there were 169 murders. In 1986, there were 223 murders. That's right....we had fewer murders in 2006, than 25 years ago.

You write: "Read it and weep. Your murder rate still higher than 25 years ago"

Using your statistics from your source in the first chart:

Based on a population of 581,530 in 2006, the murder rate was 33.70 per 100,000.
Based on a population of 636,000 in 1981, the murder rate was 35.06 per 100,00

That's right......the number of murders and the murder rate is LESS than 25 years ago.

[Tejas]

124. actually higher, imagine that

My bad for just clicking on any old link, glad that YOU are happy with your rates of murder/rape.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_05.html

These tables are more commonly used here in the Gungeon for reliable data, still can't see as to how 169 murders and 185 rapes shows that things have been getting better since the DC gun-ban...but I'm sure you can explain as to what constitutes "better".

I mean hey, as long as the crime in your area stays on the other side of town, who needs guns? :sarcasm:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. Got It

You weren't happy with your first set of statistics because I showed how you were wrong so you now try to come up with some other statistics.

I don't have to click on your link to know things are better. I live here.

If you are scared to visit DC, please let me know and I'll protect you..... really.

[Tejas]

140. You've "got" what? 20 less murders a year? You accept deaths that easily?

You're just happy as a lark with that?

With your mindset, good luck with "defending" anyone on your guided tours (won't be me), I'll be sure to watch for you on Youtube though.

[Tejas]

141. wow, 20 less murders, after 30yrs your law has really improved things

[fightthegoodfightnow]

156. Now Look Whose Marginalizing One Murder

Tell it to the 20 families a year whose loved ones are still here.

[Tejas]

166. I'll go buy some CRAYOLAS

Do I honestly need to use pictures and crayolas to communicate with you? Evidently, you wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it was a 50cal going off next to your ear.

Now, I'm headed to the store, what's your very very very mostest favorite color?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

168. Hummmm .... Sarcasm is a Great Tool if it Furthers Your Position

How does your self proclaimed sarcastic remark 'wow, 20 less murders, after 30yrs your law has really improved things' further your position.

It doesn't.

[Tejas]

169. It easily does it in that

it explains in simplistic terms that your beloved DC gunban hasn't prevented the crime that your kind said it would.

Wow, 30 years.

Yet you thump your chest over a difference of 20 murders per year, wow, what an astounding effect your ban has had. Go stand on the corner and proclaim at the top of your voice about how good things are, again, I'll watch for the vid on Youtube.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

170. Talk about Marginalizing Murder

I'll leave you to sarcastically imply with much bravado that the reduction in murders is insignificant.

Tell it to the 20 families a year whose loved ones are still here. I'm certain they have a different opinion.

The people of DC know what is in their best interest better than you do.

Talk about arrogance.

[Tejas]

171. Which is exactly what you did, accept the DC murder rate as-is.

"oh, it's so lovely now, only half the murders compared to a hand-picked year, let's all sing around the campfire"

Keep working to deny your fellow citizens of their RKBA, I know you will because the DC murder rate seems to be just fine with you.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

276. Leave It to You to Think Anyone is Happy with Any Murder Rate

Did it ever occur to you that is EXACTLY why we are putting restrictions on guns?

[Tejas]

316. Then quit justifying your murder rate

"Are" putting restrictions on guns?

Is this be your way of admiting that your 30-year debacle hasn't worked as intended?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

320. Uhmmm....... NO

Leave it to you to characterize a reduction in murder as not having the intended consequences.

If having MORE guns in the the solution for reducing gun violence, why does the United States have more guns and we have failed to reduce gun violence? In fact, how do you explain that we have more gun violence than any other country in the world?

[Tejas]

328. Still blowing smoke huh?

"we have more gun violence than any other country in the world"

Got tired of using the taxation yack so now it's this?
How many times are you going to use this one?

As asked for elsewhere, link please.

[krispos42]

354. For the same reason we have more computer crime and car accidents

Because were have more of them in the first place.

And we rank 24 in the world in terms of gun homicide.


The UK has been pretty effective in reducing gun homicides. Their gun homicide rate is at record lows!

But.... their overall homicide rate is at or near record highs.

Their gun bans has been as effective at reducing overall homicide and crime rates as a US ban on black-painted automobiles would reduce overall traffic deaths and injuries. And only a fool would wave the latest statistics about how black-painted-automobile-related deaths and injuries were down and claim it as progress.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

146. Right..........

........ because we have seen how much guns have done to reduce the death penalty rate in Texas.

[Tejas]

154. Somebody said that? You?

[Bum Whisperer]

114. The only questions I have are...

You call yourself "fightthegoodfightnow" and all I've predominantly read throughout this thread was semantics.

Is that what you consider to be a fight or a good fight?
And why now, why not later?

If that's really the case in regards to this thread, I think the 10th of never would be a great time for you to continue with your battle.

[L1A1Rocker]

151. LOL

funny post!

[L1A1Rocker]

131. Irrelevant

to the basic right to be armed.

[krispos42]

199. That's true of the entire country as a whole

But the DC ban has been in place for twice that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

226. More Evidence the Law Works

Took time to bear the fruits of our labor, but the law works.

[L1A1Rocker]

123. Good Grief

Charley Brown. Please get another line. You sound like a broken record. Boo Hoo. Take it to another thread already. That retoric does not beling in the gun forum.

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. ftgfn is railing about "outside agitators" now?

Your arguments that YOU have more of an interest in upholding or overturning the DC law is LUDICROUS since the law applies only to the District of Columbia and you do NOT live here.

Try starting a thread about gun laws in your state and I promise to ignore it and you.

Yeah, back in the Sixties the duly elected politicians of Southern states also didn't care for interference with their interpretation of Constitution from people who didn't live there. Great role model, eh?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. Hhummmm ...... DC is not a State

........ and those Southern States had voting representation in Congress when Civil Rights legislation was passed.

Not even close.

[Tejas]

167. doesn't matter, we're still going to hold your hand and guide you

[L1A1Rocker]

190. Hear that skip?

That is the sound of a broken record.

[Bum Whisperer]

194. I'm still waiting for the answer to my post...

#114. I was serious about that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

222. When You Have Something Intellect to Say

....... regarding GUNS and GUN ownership in DC, I'll be happy to respond.

[L1A1Rocker]

233. We're still waiting

This is a thread on Guns DC and how it will effect the rest of the U.S. But all you want to talk about is how you cannot vote, have taxation without representation etc, etc. You want to talk about everything ELSE BUT the OP.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

241. WRONG

WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK AND RE-READ THE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL POSTER. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT POST THAT REFERS TO THE EFFECT OF THE DC LAW ON THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

YOU DON'T LIVE IN DC SO FOR YOU TO LECTURE ME ABOUT HOW THE LAW IMPACTS YOU AND ME EQUALLY IS .......RIDICULOUS

[L1A1Rocker]

244. My, all caps and red letters to boot.

Dude, calm down, take the meds as proscribed only. This is a discussion on the D.C. appeal to SCOTUS, the supreme law of the land, you know, the one that affects all these United States. What the voting status of the D.C. residents is not germane to this thread in any shape or form. Please go start your own discussion on what you've said is your "number one subject".

Thank you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

246. See Post 241

Your opinion of DC law is irrelevant since it does not apply to you. Let me remind you that if and when your SCOTUS makes a ruling that impacts anyplace other than DC, you will have an opportunity to seek redress and express your satisfaction or dissatisfaction to your voting representative.

[Tejas]

247. You really need a range trip to work off that steam.

DC law affects me if I go there, so it's very relevant to me and the millions of others that visit. As far as the relevance of what SCOTUS decides for you, it can and will affect the rest of the country.

By the way, this "your SCOTUS" bit is silly, SCOTUS is available for YOUR use also.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

248. Today's CIvic Lesson

Today's civic lesson: Not every ruling the SCOTUS makes has national implications. In fact, many times the court sends the case back to the lower court asking them to clarify and/or address a particular concern.

As to OUR laws, you will have to keep them in mind when you make your decision to visit OUR city. I will tell you: we enforce the law and you are under no obligation to visit.

PS - Your voting representative could have prevented our law from being enacted to begin with. S/he failed to do so. Perhaps you should have complained then.

[Tejas]

249. Incorrect (again)

To say a SCOTUS ruling cannot be used nationwide as reference for precedent, well......

[fightthegoodfightnow]

250. SO WRONG

You ***REALLY** do NOT know what the f*ck you are talking about.

While most decisions have national and precedence implication, much depends on how the court rules and what restrictions and comments it makes in the majority ruling. The court has often sent back a case to a lower court for clarification or to rule on a specific element or component of the case. The court can construct a very narrow ruling specific to parties involved (ie a DISTRICT ruling or a TERRITORY ruling or a STATE ruling). The court has may options.

[Tejas]

252. your typical reply + your typical rep. rant = (you guessed it) typical

Don't you get tired of hearing yourself rant about the representation thing? Do you practice in front of a mirror? Maybe you should, it would help in fine tuning your presentation and MAYBE you wouldn't catch so much flak.

Just a suggestion.

[Tejas]

253. Now, about the SCOTUS deciding against you and Fenty

It's going to happen you know.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

264. Let's Hope You're the Attorney Representing Your Side of the Issue

..... and that is your argument.

LOL.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

254. And the Topic Is....

Here's a suggestion for you: Stick to debating the topic which is something related to guns, the District of Columbia or the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, you just sound like you are ranting and raving and taking things a bit too personally.

[Tejas]

255. In case you didn't notice, unlike your tantrums

and diatribes about your taxation situation, my comment about SCOTUS and Fenty directly relates to the subject of this thread.

Are you denying that YOUR mayor stands on the street corner applauding your 30-year old gun ban?

Are you serious?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

259. No .......to the first question

.........and yes to the second.

PS - Fenty was under 8 years old when the law was enacted. Perhaps he's alive today because of it.

[L1A1Rocker]

280. Or

inspite of it.

[Tejas]

318. ...and maybe

because his bodyguards are armed.

Fenty = Rosie

[Name removed]

323. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Will E Orwontee]

256. Take your own advise and answer my posts!

Simple questions:

How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?

Why do you ignore and dismiss the plain, unequivocal determinations of the Supreme Court and invent grandiose schemes of misconstruction to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

260. Sure --- Here You Go

You ask: "How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

The notion that the Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE is absurd. Try yellling FIRE in a theater when there is no fire and see if the First Amendment protects you. Try telling a Church it can endorse Huckabee and still keep it's tax exempt status in the name of the First Amendment. The notion that there are no conditions or limits to a right in the Bill of Rights is absurd and not supported by 200 years of Constitution law.

PS - DId it ever occur to you that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says regarding state militias?

[L1A1Rocker]

266. Oh boy, here we go again

You ask: "How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

The notion that the Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE is absurd. Try yellling FIRE in a theater when there is no fire and see if the First Amendment protects you. Try telling a Church it can endorse Huckabee and still keep it's tax exempt status in the name of the First Amendment. The notion that there are no conditions or limits to a right in the Bill of Rights is absurd and not supported by 200 years of Constitution law.

PS - DId it ever occur to you that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says regarding state militias?




Your answer is way off the mark as that is what SCOTUS is going to decide. Is DC's ban on handguns, and regs on long guns constitutional? Most say no, it violates the 2A. We shall see.

With regard to 2A and (state) militias. The 2A says NOTHING about "state militias". It does state "a well regulated militia". As I have said before, please educate yourself on what the definitions means because your are completely ignorant on them. I'll start you off with a hint, "regulated" in this context does not mean restricted. Now please go look it up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

269. Educate Yourself

The question was '"How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?''

The answer is EASY. The SCOTUS can, as it has done with virtually EVERY right, 'condition, qualify and limit' the right.

PS - All militias at the time were STATE militias. "Now please look it up."

[L1A1Rocker]

278. You are wrong

Please stop displaying for all to see that you are ignorant of the definition of militia. You yourself confirmed in a previous statement that you did not understand what the definition of militia was at the time the constitution was written. I'll give you a hint. The DC appeals court used the correct definition.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

284. I Disagree

Tell you what............. you just keep 'cutting and pasting' that I am wrong, since it appears to be so much easier for you than actually having an intelligent debate.

The SCOTUS can, as it has done with virtually EVERY right, 'condition, qualify and limit' the right. All militias at the time the Constitution was written were STATE militias.

You've argued that the definition of the militia is different. Fine....I disagree. I can to that without having the need to call you stupid.

[jmg257]

285. A "well regulated militia" refers to the Militia of the Several States, but (???)

with the creation of the Militia of the United States, how is the declaratory militia clause in the 2nd affected?

It MAY be questionable (what "militia"?) because compared to "The Militia" clauses in the original document, this clause is a general declaration. The words used should mean the same, which also means "the people" is also the same throughout the document - inidividual people of the United States, or the States.

Anyway, since "militia" was redefined to include an organized and unorganized militia, does the "a well regulated militia" part become obsolete? No doubt the intent was to secure the right of the people, and especially because they serve as the miltia. But the people's right articulated "to keep and bear arms" doesn't dissapear just because their role in the militia has been modified.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

301. Good Argument

........but not buying it.

The militia exists today and it's armed by the people.

[jmg257]

303. Ahh true - but is partially a select militia, and although Hamilton would have loved it, it is not

the constitutional militia. Way too "federal", way too armed by the feds, and it IS part of the standing Army, hmmm...except for the "unorganized militia", which must still fullfill their duty to be armed??? Still leaves the whole "well regulated" thing though - which of course is a big part of DC's argument.

This is what happens when the system layed out is changed - all sorts of new arguments arise!

[jmg257]

267. The 2nd does mean what it says about militias, it ALSO means what it says about OUR right

to keep and bear arms - it SHALL NOT BE infringed.

Although Congress decided to usurp power to create a federal "militia" and ignore the constitutional Militia of the several States and how they ARE NECESSARY, that declaratory part of the amendment regarding said militias is STILL important, and STILL provides securty to any arms applicable to militia duty. It so happens that MANY of the people ARE members of this new "militia".

Meanwhile, the restrictive clause explicitly securing the absolute RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is STILL binding.

THAT is what we have been saying, and arguing against anti-gun fools for so long.

They want to obsolete THE Militia of the several States and the people's role in it - OK (yet not good), but OUR NATURAL RIGHT to arms, which is not dependent on the militia or the Constitution for its existence, is still secured by it (via the 2nd).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

270. Natural Right?

You're getting the Declaration of Independence with it's claims of 'natural rights' confused with the US Constitution.

[jmg257]

272. posted twice nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

275. Nonsense

Nonsense.

There is not a single right in the Bill of Rights that doesn't have restrictions on it, including the Second Amendment. For example, the government can and does restrict gun ownership to those of a certain age, to criminals and to the mentally ill.

Your claim that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is just plain folly on your part.

As for the original intent, Madison was the one who changed the original wording to put the words MILITIA at the start of the sentence moving it from the 17th word to the 4th word.

PS - Mr. Benson statement during deliberations was regarding religious objections to joining the militia based on claims of it being a natural right. The entire reference to religious objection was dropped based on the support for the right of government to compel gun ownership in the militia. All you have done is support my claim.

[jmg257]

277. SO you know it was Madison who revised the article in the select committee?

That HE would change his own recommendation? That is curious - do you have any definitive info on this?.. Not that it matters to his thinking the right to keep and bear was "absolute".


And Benson's comment quite clearly shows they thought one being "religiously scrupulous" is NOT a natural right, while "keeping and bearing arms" is.


That the exemption was dropped was indeed to help keep the people from being disarmed, and so the militia rendered ineffective...

Elbridge Gerry: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed...Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious} clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures, with respect to a militia as to make a standing army necessary."


Thomas Scott: objected that the exemption would mean that "a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the Constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

287. Thanks

Your first two statements support my position. Thanks.

You write: 'What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.'

That's YOUR interpretation of militia. Not mine.

[jmg257]

288. I KNOW! I never argued about the importance of The Miltia, only the right secured.

It says right there the militia IS NECESSARY. And it should be - it has a VERY important (yet limited) role to play in defense of our liberties! And yes, the Militia referred to is the Militia of the Several States, and that membership was mandatory, and that the people were to arm themselves acording to guidlines set by the States, then the Congress. It is the duty of the people to arm themselves.

Anyway - just because the militia that was deemed mandatory has been redefined, does NOT affect the RIGHT secured, which explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" {PERIOD}.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

289. Militia as an Individual or for the Collective Good

...... has yet to be ruled on by the court.

You write: 'Anway - just because the militia that was deemed mandatory has been redefined, does NOT affect the RIGHT secured, which explicitly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

The definition and role of the militia is critical, since the fruit falls from that tree. Your position is one argument, but the court has not ruled such yet.

[jmg257]

294. Agreed - the CURRENT USSC has yet to agree. The lower court agreed, the

Congress agreed. Obviously I hope the current court will agree. I am convinced 99.999% that the right is individual regardless of the Militia observation. I know the militia was a primary reason for the 2nd, due to the militia clauses giving certain powers to congress. I also know the framers thought self-defense a natural right, and the bearing of arms a natural right (the means to self-defense, and at a time with bears and "savages", and "Spaniards" and "French" as constant enemies, and after just fighting a revolution against a country trying to limit such arms/rights - it is really a no brainer.) I also know the right to arms does NOT count on the 2nd for it's existence, only for its security, and Congress has NO power to infringe on it anyway.


I also know that restrictions MAY be placed on the USE of rights, but that THE right is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE suspended without due process. Yes, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater (not on fire) - you do not however get your tongue removed every time you go in one. I cannot shoot someone indiscriminatley in a theater, I CAN however shoot someone in self-defense. IF I cannot carry in said theater, my right to self-defense, and my right to bear arms, has been SEVERLY INFRINGED without just or reasonable cause. Same with all "gun free" zones - clearly proven to be unreasonable to stopping violent crimes while leaving we the people defenseless, and as an obvious infringment contrary to the 2nd's security.


The inclusion of the Militia clause to the right secured does say why the people should have right to every terrible implement of war, why such arms "are the birthright of an Amercian." And sets limits on "reasonable restrictions" just because the role of the militia, and so the people, is MOST important to securing our liberties. Which is why most gun bans are also unreasonable and should be ruled unconstitutional.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

297. Naturally I Disagree....

.........but I can appreciate your reasoned arguments.

[jmg257]

299. Cheers!! OK - what does "free State" refer to in the 2nd? The several states or

the "State" as in a governmental unit??

I thought originally the 50 "states", due to the militia reference, now I think the "govt unit" thing. Because the 2nd started out a "free Country", and is a general observation about "A...militia", and because Jefferson referred to the newly created "State", I think otherwise now.

What say you?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

300. Good Question

Could go either way, but not sure it makes a significant difference, since either the 'state' as in an individual state or 'state' as in the new federal government are both references to government for the common good.

[jmg257]

305. I was thinking your case in DC; "the people" COULD mean

the people <of the several states> because they are specifically talking about states {militias}, which means you aren't included, or the people <of the United States>, which means you are. All this also being associated with the "state perogative" intent argument about whether "a w. r. militia" is "the militia", or is it general, & maybe in a way DOES it give the feds some power to redefine what "the militia" that is necessary is?


Thinking more on this...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

307. Good Distinction

I believe the District has argued the first position.

As for the second position, an argument could be made that because of the unique jurisdiction of the District, which uniquely falls under federal jurisdiction, the 'people' (meaning your Congress) had their chance to override the law for over 30 years and they have failed to do so. In other words, the court could rule in the District's favor and put the burden back on the 'people' as represented by 'your people' to change the law, which no doubt would not be difficult to do given all the other meddling they do.

[jmg257]

308. Excellent! Simply leave it up to Congress - which has "exclusive legislation

in all cases whatsoever, over such District..."

But them why would the lower court have heard the case? Why would the USSC lay out a specific question to be addressed?

Hmmmm....

Well, before '06 maybe the law would be changed via legislation, but with a Democrat congress? I wouldn't think so.(??)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

311. The DC Law Could Be Changed Any Year

.......Congress or the President wanted to by holding up the Districts local budget as they have with a number of 'hot issues' like needle exchange programs, etc. Heck, it's doesn't even require that much. A single Congressman can hold up our budget in committee.

The lower court heard the case because the Constitution provides for judicial review of all things Congressional.

All of which brings us back full circle why representative government is so important even as some on this board think it's really not that important.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

315. State Militias or Federal Standing Army

Whether or not the militia is in reference to the state militia's or the federal government's army, one thing is certain: they didn't write the US Constitution to have it overthrown by any army. The Constitution clearly addresses treason in Article 3, so the notion that we have the right to own guns to overthrow our own government and by extension our Constitution is not, in my opinion, well founded. It is, however, very clear in the Preamble why the Constitution was created: 'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Certainly, DC's law does just that.

[jmg257]

335. The 2nd's "militia" is definitely NOT the federal army, atleast it wasn't then.

I think we would agree on that quite readily. The problem there is again, the feds redefining what "the militia" is, and both the feds and states ignoring the true militia.

Also we agree that the Constitution was not to be overthrown by any army. The people's right to effective arms helps keep our liberties secure from a tyrannical govt (which would also definitely not be one the constitution supported), as an effective militia made up of the body of the people, sufficiently armed and trained, helps keep our liberties secure from the typical force of a tyrant - that bane of liberty - a standing army. The right to arms also allows the people individually to enjoy the private and natural right to self-defense, & to enjoy the recreational uses of their property (guns for hunting, shooting,collecting &c.). There is no wonder such a right was explicitly protected from infringement.

Unfortunately DC law infringes on un/inalienable rights, not only by restricting the natural inherent right to bear arms, and so also restricting the natural right of self defense. Such unreasonable infringment on natural rights, and denying them to our posterity is CLEARLY NOT the purpose of forming the govt - quite the opposite.

"The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

340. Natural Rights

You write: "Unfortunately DC law infringes on un/inalienable rights, not only by restricting the natural inherent right to bear arms, and so also restricting the natural right of self defense. Such unreasonable infringment on natural rights, and denying them to our posterity is CLEARLY NOT the purpose of forming the govt - quite the opposite. "

I think you have a misguided notion of what constitutes a 'natural right'. A natural right is 'a universal right that is seen as inherent in the nature of, ethics and not contingent on human actions or beliefs.' There is nothing 'natural' about a gun. It's a man made object. Further, the notion that having a gun is the only means of defending oneself or one's property is simply not true.

I'm always amused when gun advocates say that BOTH the federal government and the states are ignoring the 'true' definition of the militia.

[jody]

341. Self-defense is usually considered by philosophers as the first or most important natural right.

The issue of right to keep and bear arms is primarily about self-defense and a distant second is defense of state involving the militia.

Given that all of the 836,787 sworn law enforcement officers chose a handgun as their primary means of self-defense, it should not surprise even you that law-abiding citizens choose handguns as their tool for self-defense.

You should also acknowledge that LEO's do not have natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights to keep and bear arms but their RKBA is a privilege granted by We the People through our government.

It's not surprising that law-abiding citizens who have a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to defend self and property should choose guns in general and handguns in particular for their tool of choice for self-defense.

Only those who would take away inalienable/unalienable rights would disarm law-abiding citizens.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

346. Nonsense

The DC police support the DC law. The notion that there is anything natural about a gun is ridiculous.

[jody]

350. Are you reading challenged? The issue is self-defense which many states say is a right and

enumerated in their constitution.

Those rights are either enumerated in the Bill of Rights or unenumerated and covered by the Ninth Amendment.

We are discussing the type of arms, actually tools, a law-abiding citizen shall keep and bear to provide for her/his own self-defense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

365. Self Defense

The notion that a gun is the only way to defend oneself is just silly. Try 911 and you'll find lots of skilled, qualified folks with guns at your disposal. Ever heard of a lock? How about an alarm system.

PS - You are not a 'law-abiding' citizen in DC if you are breaking our gun laws.

[jody]

369. You refuse to acknowledge simple facts. 911 is useless in most violent crimes because LEOs cannot

respond in time

Must you become a victim to change your mind?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

373. More Ignorance

....... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Decades ago, I was locked in a freezer with two other employees when the manager I worked for thought he could defend himself and tried to shoot the robber. The robber shot and killed him.

I was held up at gun point twice... once at another job and once on the street. I've seen gun shot wounds close up when I witnessed a gun go off and kill a family member. I saw the husband of my one of my co-workers get drunk one night and start threatening his wife waiving the pistol at her. He could barely stand up far less hold his finger on a trigger safely.

It just never occurred to you that it might be exactly because of my first hand and personal experience that I completely support DC gun laws.

Oh...and by the way......... 911 worked. One of my assailants is behind bars.

But heh...... keep thinking you know what's best for me and my community.

[jody]

374. "More Ignorance", you bet and you have a monopoly on the topic.

Goodbye :hi:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

376. Typical....... Bye Indeed

Please promise me you found the ignore button. When you can come back and post something intelligent and responsive, you let me know.

But my bet is you won't hold true to your word and say goodbye for good. Too bad.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

368. WOW........

.....so let me get this right.......... using your ridiculous logic the Ninth Amendment means nuclear weapons are Constitutionally protected. Didn't think so.

[jody]

370. You confirm my suspicion. n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

371. Just as I Thought

You can't come up with an argument for why they might be outlawed that doesn't also threaten your notion of what is constitutionally permissible regarding restrictions on gun ownership. No surprise there.

[Tejas]

343. Amusing indeed

"Further, the notion that having a gun is the only means of defending oneself or one's property is simply not true."


Sean Taylor would disagree with you on that, but then, he's dead.

:-(

[fightthegoodfightnow]

345. Right.........and Where Was He Shot?

Hhmmmm.....FLORIDA.

And gosh.....wasn't Taylor once charged with armed assault for waiving a weapon at someone. Looks like his gun ownership did nothing to protect him in Florida.

[Tejas]

366. In the leg (by a crook with a gun)

"Further, the notion that having a gun is the only means of defending oneself or one's property is simply not true."

Brady at it's best!

You would bring a broom to a gunfight, but Brady will applaud you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

367. Right ........... but heh.......... you didn't mention Brady

What a cr*ck, but I suspect it's the best you can do.

If that is Brady, you certainly couldn't come up with a substantive or meaningful counter-response.

Let me repeat: ".......the notion that having a gun is the only means of defending oneself or one's property is simply not true."

Try again.

[Tejas]

372. Still non-responsive...no link, no nothing, typical

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Self Deleted - Posted Twice by Mistake

Self Deleted - Posted Twice by Mistake

[fightthegoodfightnow]

375. You Hate Brady

Got it and you confuse me with him because to you........ we are all the same. Typical and non-responsive indeed.

[Tejas]

377. Has nothing to do with your lack of proof - again, non-responsive (and childish)

[jmg257]

379. Response to "Natural Rights": I did not argue "guns" were the only means of self defense. I also

did not argue that the states or the feds ignore the true definition of the militia.

It IS my argument that framers figured the "the right to keep and bear arms" as a natural right - because that is what they said (as well as absolute, inherent, private, personal). My view of the right is much less important, because THEY are the ones who wisely secured that right as part of the law of the land. I do indeed prefer their view of it.

I do argue that the Congress has redefined or recreated what the constitutional militia is. I also argue they had no power to do so, they had only the power to provide for arming, organizing and discipling THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES, entities that existed and were well defined BEFORE the Constitution gave them such vital and permanent roles. Congress could not ignore them, and Congress did not get power to create them, or recreate them, or redefine them. Any power they used to do so is a usurption.

I would also argue that they eventually created a "Militia of the United States" to take the place of the constitutional Militia of the several States (again a usurption). This includes the "organized Militia" (NG) and the "unorganized militia". They also redefined the role of their new creation to include actions not listed in the constitution, and to make the select and active part of it a reserve of the federal standing army. Although I have not argued it, they did force the states to cede most of whatever control they had over the militia as a condition precedent for receiving federal funds. Some states do have State Defense Forces; these however are also not the constitutional Militias, because they serve no federal role as mandated by the constitution.

I would also argue that the federal government providing the actual small arms the new militia uses is also in conflict with the intent of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution was for the the Congress to provide guidlines, NOT the actual arms, and this intent is CLEARLY supported by the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the debates in Congress, the state Militia Acts, and the Militia Act of 1792, and the documented knowlege of how the Militia of the several States traditionally functioned...I would also argue that IF it was the intent that the feds provide the arms, that this would CLEARLY be in conflict with ANY notion that the 2nd only secures a militia right "to KEEP and bear arms". I have yet to hear of a Guard member being able to bring his M16 home with him.



Luckily, as we have seen, MY right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on my role in the militia, although my role in the militia does secure my right to those arms in common military use.

[jmg257]

380. Forget it posts are all over the place. nt

[jmg257]

273. posted thrice in wrong place oh well. nt

[jmg257]

274. Yes - "natural". I am considering the words of the framers who wrote & debated the BoR,

and how they commented on THIS right being natural.

In Congress: Aug17 1789 Debating what became the 2nd amendment: "The 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."

Mr Benson: Moved to have the words “but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms” struck out. He would "always leave it to benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. NO MAN CAN CLAIM THIS INDULGENCE OF RIGHT. IT MAY BE RELIGIOUS PERSUASION, BUT IT IS NO NATURAL RIGHT, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the government…It is extremely injudicious to mix matters of doubt with fundamentals."

So he wanted "religiously scupulous" being removed from "the right to bear arms" because the former wasn't a "natural right", while the right to arms was considered to be a "natural right", and "fundemental". (also "inherent", "private", "personal" - other member's descriptions of the rights articulated in the BoR)


Oh, and on "absolute":

Madison wrote: "Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided."

SO he avoided proposing ANY right not considered absolute, so obviously the right to arms was considered absolute.

[L1A1Rocker]

279. Wrong again

You obviously have absolutely no idea of US history with regard to the constitution. The hole reason for the Bill of Rights was to placate those that feared an overreaching oppressive government. The rights in the Bill of Rights WERE recognized as naturally God given rights. Without going into a lengthy discussion on this subject I suggest you pick up a history book and READ IT.

[L1A1Rocker]

281. Wow, what a colossal

gem on ignorance you are.

You obviously have absolutely no idea of US history with regard to the constitution. The hole reason for the Bill of Rights was to placate those that feared an overreaching oppressive government. The rights in the Bill of Rights WERE recognized as naturally God given rights. Without going into a lengthy discussion on this subject I suggest you pick up a history book and READ IT.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

306. Naturally God Given Rights

Oh.........please do quote those words from the Constitution.

Read it yourself.

[L1A1Rocker]

309. Did you see any quotation marks in my last comment

NO. yet you try to imply that I was quoting the constitution. Lear you subject matter.

[Will E Orwontee]

282. Sorry Charlie!

The notion that the Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE is absurd. Try yellling FIRE in a theater when there is no fire and see if the First Amendment protects you. Try telling a Church it can endorse Huckabee and still keep it's tax exempt status in the name of the First Amendment. The notion that there are no conditions or limits to a right in the Bill of Rights is absurd and not supported by 200 years of Constitution law.

First, you didn't come close to answering the question.

Second, no one is arguing for an absolute right interpretation, . . . Just that legitimate restrictions on the right to arms are found by examining the principles behind why the right was secured, not in any shifting, moldable misconstructions "interpreting" restrictions, qualifications and conditions from the lexicon of the provision itself.

The reason the framers considered the pre-existing right important enough to be constitutionally secured, (the "object" of the amendment) does impart some limitations on the scope or exercise of the right to arms, just as the "object" of the 1st Amendment legitimizes laws constraining our right to speak and publish. For the 2nd Amendment, the perpetuation of the militia concept is why the amendment exists, but the individual right to arms is the "means" to achieve that "object" and THAT is what is protected.

Just so we are using the same definitions; from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

OB'JECT, n. 2. That to which the mind is directed for accomplishment or attainment; end; ultimate purpose.

MEAN, n. 3. Instrument; that which is used to effect an object; the medium through which something is done. In this sense, means, in the plural, is generally used,

To examine this in practice let's look at Aymette at 158:

"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. "

Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The above recognizes two separate entities. The "object" of the provision and the means to achieve it. The object is why the framers thought it important to secure the right, (which is not created by the provision, merely recognized and "secured" by it).

"The people acting in a body, for their common defence, . . ." is "the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured." The object, the overall intent of this state provision and the federal 2nd Amendment, can not be realized without the means to achieve it.

The lower federal courts have misread, misrepresented and misused Miller to create a complicated collective right interpretation from a simple collective object explanation. And that is what you are parroting . . .

This nation has, as an inseparable component an armed citizenry; no establishing statute or clause need be written to create it or the principles behind the militia concept. An armed citizenry is a fundamental maxim of our Republic and exists on a plane above the the grant of Constitutional powers and hence, untouchable by any entity created by (or operating under) the US Constitution. (See Presser)

PS - DId it ever occur to you that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says regarding state militias?

That's my entire argument! The 2nd has never been held by SCOTUS to illuminate any aspect of state militia powers; it does not speak to the states at all. I recognize and completely understand the "state's right" theory of the 2nd but when the actual issue of who controls the militia is examined the "state's right" theory is exposed for the fraud it is.

If the 2nd Amendment's action is to protect a state's militia from federal interference then the judicial record must be bursting with instances of states citing the 2nd and defeating federal demands of preemption and supremacy over their militia. Unfortunately for your side, the 2nd has never been looked to for guidance or, even more damaging to the "state's right" theory, has never been claimed by any state to provide any immunity from federal interference. (The 2nd was mentioned in one case by a Justice but only to unequivocally state it "offered nothing to the discussion at hand.") Any issues of federal / state militia power conflict have only been decided by referring to Art I, § 8 powers, never the 2nd Amendment.

Very, very strange given your claims of the Amendment's ambit of influence!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

296. Too Bad You Don't Like My Responses

Just to remind you what the question was, let me repeat what you asked: ' "How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

There are indeed, as I have responded "condtions, qualify (sic) and limits' on the right.

You respond: 'First, you didn't come close to answering the question.'

Hhummm .... that was an answer. You just didn't like it.

You write: 'Second, no one is arguing for an absolute right interpretation, . . . Just that legitimate restrictions on the right to arms are found by examining the principles behind why the right was secured, not in any shifting, moldable misconstructions "interpreting" restrictions, qualifications and conditions from the lexicon of the provision itself. '

Well....we are indeed getting somewhere when you say there can be 'legitimate restrictions on the right.'

Now let's go back to that question: '"How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

Judicial rulings are based on the interpretation of those words, which means, there can indeed be restrictions and gosh.... yes..... 'conditions and limits' to use your words on those rights.

Now, let's look at that case law of yours: 'Aymette at 158:

"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. "

WOW- thanks for that!! If the object (big word) is for the "COMMON DEFENSE" and the "PEOPLE IN A BODY", your case certainly does nothing to further the claim the Second Amendment is for an INDIVIDUAL right as some have claimed.

[Will E Orwontee]

310. Oh dear Lord . . .

There are indeed, as I have responded "condtions, qualify (sic) and limits' on the right.

You respond: 'First, you didn't come close to answering the question.'

Hhummm .... that was an answer. You just didn't like it.

Huh? Why the sic? There are no errors in grammar in my original statement (there are profound errors in your sentence construction though).

So what you are saying here is that you have noted that conditions in fact exist and that answers the question? Sorry, you still fail in answering the question.

Judicial rulings are based on the interpretation of those words, which means, there can indeed be restrictions and gosh.... yes..... 'conditions and limits' to use your words on those rights.

But the interpretation must have root in the principles behind the provision. For you to argue that three simple words, "well regulated militia" now establish a scheme of conditions and qualifications upon the right when no such intention to ever limit the right to a select corps of arm bearers was ever posited by any founder is incorrect, illogical and unconstitutional. The reasoning behind these lower federal cases where this collective right theory was created and fleshed out has no foundation in the history or legal traditions of this nation.

I'm only asking you to share the reasoning behind your position.

Now, let's look at that case law of yours: 'Aymette at 158:

"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. "

WOW- thanks for that!! If the object (big word) is for the "COMMON DEFENSE" and the "PEOPLE IN A BODY", your case certainly does nothing to further the claim the Second Amendment is for an INDIVIDUAL right as some have claimed.

Amazing . . .

Does the statement, "the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured" allow the argument that the right is modified or limited by the reason for its being guaranteed?

Does the statement, "If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority" allow one to argue that the citizens may only keep and bear arms upon enrollment in an official government organization and only to the extent that government allows?

Had you actually read the case you might know that other citizen actions were presented as being protected by the RKBA provision; among them was, "protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution." (emphasis added)

See, a primary reason why the people should be secure in their right to arms is to keep the government honest. If "those in authority" were to say the individual right does not exist, and act to restrict the "arms in their (the citizen's) hands," how then do the people remain, "prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority?"

Wouldn't that act be EXACTLY the type of encroachment the people are supposed to guard against?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

312. Twist and Turn

Not much new in your post worth responding to. We just disagree and come to different conclusions.

You ask: 'Does the statement, "the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured" allow the argument that the right is modified or limited by the reason for its being guaranteed?"

You've already stated that the right is not absolute and that the legislature with judicial review can limit, qualify or restrict rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights as they have done with virtually every right. There is nothing in your case that speaks of an individuals right. In fact, it speaks of the common good. You can argue that our own government does not exist for the common good, but I'm not buying it. The Constitution clearly addresses treason in Article 3, so the notion that we have the right to own guns to overthrow our own government and by extension our Constitution is not, in my opinion, well founded. It is, however, very clear in the Preamble why the Constitution was created: 'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[krispos42]

332. The Courts limit the Second Amendment based on ...

strict scrutiny.

The Second is not an unlimited right. What constitutes "arms" was set in law in 1934 and nobody really is clamoring to get it changed.

However, the first clause does NOT set conditions on the second.

[L1A1Rocker]

257. Unbelievable

Are you the same person that has posted all the off topic posts on this thread? I know the user name is the same account but from your post on staying on topic you are obviously not the same person.




fightthegoodfightnow (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-12-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #252
254. And the Topic Is....
Here's a suggestion for you: Stick to debating the topic which is something related to guns, the District of Columbia or the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, you just sound like you are ranting and raving and taking things a bit too personally.




You are definitely not the same broken record that keeps trying to change the topic of this thread are you?!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

261. Was That Your Attempt to Write Something About the

..............guns, the Supreme Court or DC?


Here's your grade:

F


Let me know when you are ready to debate the issue of whether or not you should be able to own a gun should you ever (not) actually live in the District of Columbia.

[L1A1Rocker]

291. Do you really

need someone to go through all you posts in this thread to show you how often you have gone off topic to the OP?!

Unbelievable!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

293. Nah.........I'll Just Point Out

........again, your post had nothing to do with gun ownership in DC and who gets to decide our laws.

[L1A1Rocker]

258. You may be correct

But you are the ONLY person on the internet that I have heard stating the belief that SCOTUS will narrow their decision to only affect the DC area. With regard to kicking the case back for further review you are dead wrong. The time for SCOTUS to do that on this case has come and gone. SCOTUS has given cert. on this case and oral arguments will be herd in April.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

263. Thanks for Acknowledging I May Be Right

Now, are you *REALLY* saying the Court has NEVER kicked a case back to a lower court for clarification?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

271. Get Real

You write: "With regard to kicking the case back for further review you are dead wrong. The time for SCOTUS to do that on this case has come and gone. SCOTUS has given cert. on this case and oral arguments will be herd in April."

After hearing the case, the Court can indeed send the case back to the lower court.

If you cannot acknowledge this SIMPLE fact, then I would be concerned with your own education before you worry about what you think is my ignorance.

[L1A1Rocker]

283. Your reading more into it.

SCOTUS can do whatever they want but you fail to acknowledge that had SCOTUS wanted to kick it back they would have already done it. The time for when they would have kicked it back has passed. It doesn't make any since at all to hear the case and THEN send it back. Please name for me one case where SCOTUS has herd oral argument and THEN sent it back down to the lower court. You are quit simply throwing a temper tantrum because things are not going the way you want them to. Like the spoiled 5 year old jumping up and down screaming I want, I want. You can want all you want to but that doesn't mean that you are going to get.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

286. Read Indeed

You write: 'SCOTUS can do whatever they want but you fail to acknowledge that had SCOTUS wanted to kick it back they would have already done it.'

They've had an opportunity to do so and they will again. It's that simple.

You ask: 'Please name for me one case where SCOTUS has herd oral argument and THEN sent it back down to the lower court.'

Oh....good grief. Give me a break. I beginning to believe you actually have never heard of it doing that.

Go to Yahoo and put in the words 'Supreme Court sends case back to lower court'

I'm sure you can find a case or two.

[L1A1Rocker]

302. Try again

You write "They've had an opportunity to do so and they will again. It's that simple."
We disagree on this. They had the opportunity to do so and didn't because, as strange as it may seem to you, they want to rule on the case.

You write "Go to Yahoo and put in the words 'Supreme Court sends case back to lower court" That is NOT what we were discussing and will give false responses. I have acknowledged that the court CAN kick back a case once oral arguments have been herd but that they have never done so. It is you that insists that they HAVE done so and that puts the burden of proof on you.

So I will re-state: Please name for me one case where SCOTUS has herd oral argument and THEN sent it back down to the lower court. I doubt that you will because I doubt that there is one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

304. Reality

The Court has indeed heard oral arguments and made rulings sending cases back to lower courts.

You can deny reality all you want.

[jmg257]

268. Miller has been cited ALL over when gun rights are "discussed". Whether in courts, or

in such debates, articles, anti-gun propoganda, or whatever. Sheesh - it is a major cite in THIS case currently before the USSC. Heller WILL have far reaching effects, whatever happens.

[Tejas]

384. Yes, despite what FTGFN thinks, this isn't a zoning request for a 7/11 n/t

[Tejas]

385. Fee free to point to a SCOTUS gun case not having nat'l implications n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

251. PS

PS - Your voting representative could have prevented our law from being enacted to begin with. S/he failed to do so. Perhaps you should have complained then.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

225. YEA............ DON'T YOU JUST HATE IT WHEN THE PEOPLE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO VOTE

You folks are so silly ........ you can't even come up with what is arguably the best argument for why the DC law should be overturned and that is the right of the people to overthrow their own government.

[L1A1Rocker]

234. Broken record again.

Boo hoo hoo. No matter what the OP is you talk about something else. Skip, Skip, Skip, just like a broken record. You've made around five posts today on this thread about how you cannot vote. Please start your own thread about it and don't hijack other peoples threads. That is VERY rude.

[Bum Whisperer]

195. Up until recently...

...DC was the murder capital of the US. Though it's not a state, how can it have such a high murder rate if firearms are illegal to own and possess? Firearms are legal to own, possess and use in my state and we're nowhere close to being any part of a nation-wide statistic base for anything regarding criminality. What gives?

How can more guns equal less crime and more gun restrictions equal more crime? Is this the good fight you're attempting to fight? Or is it using semantics against the good fight? Are you fighting semantics. Is it really now? Has it been? Or will it be?

You have me really confused here and I haven't even had a beer today. Maybe a beer or twelve beer will unconfuse me.

[SteveM]

210. Reading FTGFN has one benefit: I have to light up (nt)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

221. That's Right

DC reduced Gun Violence.............. with gosh........... a gun law our people support.

Sorry that confuses you.

[krispos42]

352. DC reduced violence with a gun law?

Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that the law works great, it just took 20 years to start doing something. And ignore the fact that the homicide rate drop that DC enjoyed because of "a gun law our people support" was mirrored in every state across the country, from ocean to ocean and the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico.

[Boomer 50]

213. Something everyone needs to think about.

This case means much more to our lives than just the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what side of the issue you fall on.

Core to this decision is something that few people seem to notice. This case revolves around the context of the 2nd Amendment and whether its an individual right or a collective right. To argue this point, the key part of the phrase in question is "the people". Anyone with an understanding of law will point out that in a legal document, a word may not have more than one meaning. This is to clarify and protect the document, the intent and the execution of the matter at hand. This standard goes back centuries, far longer than the United States has been a nation.

So, let us surmise that the USSC decides in favor for DC. This changes the meaning of "people" in the entire United States Constitution. It will effectively nullify ALL civil rights and change the face of the nation in ways we do not want to think about. Our right to free speech (including seeking redress of greivance), our right to assemble, worship in our own way and even our right to privacy will be at great risk.

The notion of cutting off ones nose to spite his face comes to mind here. We are supposed to be progressive thinkers but on this matter, many seem to lose all rational thought process and forget the consequenses of our actions. While we all do this on one matter or another, we cannot afford to jump the tracks on this issue. It will end up costing all of us dearly in the future if we do.

I sincerely hope that DC loses this case and the USSC rules in favor of Heller very strongly and broadly. In order to protect our other civil rights, I hope that the USSC also incorporates the 2nd under the 14th to secure all of our rights and to finally put to rest the destructive battle that is raging on firearms. If they don't, I shudder to think what people like Bush and Cheney and McCain and others may do to our rights. Personally, I don't want my home searched and my family terrorized because the right to privacy is a collective right that is enjoyed by the state only.

And remember, should that happen, we won't have the right to seek an audience with our elected officials to complain. DC made it quite clear in their brief that they do not think that we have that right even now. I don't want to find out how bad it could be if the USSC agrees.

[virginia mountainman]

214. EXCELLENT POST BOOMER!!

:toast:

It seems many people, are willing to toss the entire constitution under the bus, in the name of "saving the children".

They seem brainless to the point of imbeciles, not seeing the end result of what they do, nor even caring about the far reaching consequences such a stances.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

227. TOSS THE CONSTITUTION?

Your Constitution has done NOTHING to protect the rights of the people of DC to vote........ which is NUMBER ONE in my book.

Any fruit from the tree of democracy falls from the right to vote.

[L1A1Rocker]

235. The number one

in your book has really trounced all over the OP in this thread. How incredibly rude of you. Please start your own thread on that topic and quit hijacking other peoples threads.

[Tejas]

238. Careful there

Absent any comments other than "DC is safe, doesn't need guns", he's finally broken out the ASSAULT-CAPS to get his point across.

[jmg257]

239. You are right. Nothing in there about DC people being able to vote for Congress.

That right is, so far, reserved for state citizens.

A1 "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,..."

Amend 17: "(1) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Amend 19: "SECTION 1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The citizens of DC were not given the right to vote (yet), so can that right be denied if it doesn't exist?

Amend 23: "The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment."

Here you go, DC citizens granted voting rights for the executive.


Amend 26: "SECTION 1 The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of age."

The right of DC citizens to vote for the executive is further secured.

Congress does have power:

A1, S8 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

This clause is overode (overidden?) by any applicable amendments, such as the 2nd, which AMENDS the Constitution and explicitly restricts Congress.

And the 16th Amendment gave Congress power:

"to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportioned among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."



Seems you need an amendment granting or securing sufferage for representation in the Congress. Luckily though, as people of the United States - for all the people of the United States, the Constitution does secure our right to keep and bear arms.

[SteveM]

215. You are right on with this!...

I believe Alan Dershowitz had the same thing in mind when he said:

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution be claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard... They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- 62 Tennessee Law Review, 759, 789 (1995).

[L1A1Rocker]

217. Thanks for the Dershowitz quote.

I tried to reference it earlier in this thread but could not find the exact text I was looking for.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

224. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT DENY DC RESIDENTS THE RIGHT TO VOTE

It doesn't exist.

[L1A1Rocker]

236. Broken record again

Boo hoo hoo. You really have no consideration for other people's threads do you? Please start your own thread on DC and quit hijacking other peoples threads.

[L1A1Rocker]

216. You are dead on target!

Many schoolers that once proclaimed 2A as a collective right are now re-thinking that position based on exactly what you have so eloquently stated.

Thank you

[fightthegoodfightnow]

223. LEGITIMACY

It's hard to take any claim to the rights of the "PEOPLE" seriously when the "PEOPLE" don't have the simple right to vote. Every fruit of the tree stems from the trunk of democracy.

[virginia mountainman]

228. You and your "selective rights"

Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

[L1A1Rocker]

237. Broken record alert

Again you try to hijack someone else's thread. How incredibly rude of you. Start your own.

[jody]

229. Thoughtful post. Thanks! n/t

[krispos42]

240. "The people" is only mentioned twice in the Constitution

five times in the Bill of Rights, and twice in the 17th Amendment.

Boldface mine:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pensylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

“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.

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Changing that definition would change a lot, including election of Congressmen and Senators. :scared:


Boomer, this finding of yours deserves it's own post. Probably in GD or GD-P.

[jmg257]

242. Hey, what "the people" are referred to in the 2nd? The "United States"?

or "the States"? Does it matter? (it could for the people of DC)

I figure the "United States", because it is the federal Constitution, by "We the people of the United States".

[jmg257]

356. Don't agree. DC argues that "the people" DO have an individual right, but THAT right is ONLY

applicable, or only secured, when serving in the militia (or other military based role).

In this way the definition of "the people" will not be affected.

[Recursion]

360. Umm... every male between the ages of 17 and 45 is in the militia

So why does DC keep them from owning firearms?

:shrug:

[jmg257]

361. According to DC, because they are not part of "a well regulated militia". nt

[Recursion]

363. What's the point of an unarmed militia?

Why doesn't DC change its law to limit militia membership to the DC National Guard and DC Air National Guard?

[jmg257]

378. I have no idea - seems pointless to me, especially in traditional & constitutional roles.

Also, I am not familiar at all with DC National Guard.

[slackmaster]

386. Unarmed militias are good for disaster response

e.g. placing sandbags for flood control.

California last called up its unorganized militia for border control in the 1930s. Private citizens were conscripted for the purpose of intimidating people, to discourage them from entering the state.