Patriot Group Fights Back Against Confiscation Order: ‘We Are Armed… Familiar With Marksmanship

reply to post by Asktheanimals



My lord "Oblvion sets his laptop down and stands....and then begins clapping loudly, as his roommates look at him like he is crazy"

Would please just make a thread and completely rip all shred of these peoples sheltered lives apart for them, until they see the truth of the actual world they live in?

buster2010
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

In 2008's DC v Heller ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right, and that it was unconnected to militia service. It acknowledged that certain restrictions could be placed, but declined to address the issue of 'assault weapons'.

Its interesting that you mention US v Miller. You're supporting a ban on 'assault weapons' because they supposedly have military features, yet you cite a case which supported a ban short barreled shotguns because they did NOT have applications to the military or substantial use for militia purposes.

reply to post by vor78


Astonishing isnt it.

They always try to be so deceitful to argue their side or get their way, because the truth wont serve either of those ends.

reply to post by oblvion

Would please just make a thread and completely rip all shred of these peoples sheltered lives apart for them, until they see the truth of the actual world they live in?

Off topic & ad hominem.

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by James1982

 

The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.

Had what? The Constitution is the Constitution. There are even provisions for the Constitution to be changed. Or are you finally admitting you are not interested in the Constitution and simply want to foment insurrection?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

None. When it was written "well regulated" meant. "In good order" and "well equipped." Which is why the militia act of the same time period defined all men with a few exceptions part of the militia and instructed them to provide themselves (IE buy their own) with the same arms and basic kit of the average infantry soldier. Thus, we can see quite plainly that the intent of the second amendment was that all of the people be armed with the same basic small arms of the regular army.

oblvion
reply to post by vor78

 

Astonishing isnt it.

They always try to be so deceitful to argue their side or get their way, because the truth wont serve either of those ends.

Off topic & ad hominem.

DJW001
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

So you're going to go with the insurrectionist rhetoric, too?

it's the rhetoric of self-preservation.
If we cannot defend our lives or those of our loved ones we end up in tyranny.
Even Europe is beginning to question the wisdom of giving government total control.
So much for disarmament followed by peace and security.

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by James1982

 

The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.

Had what? The Constitution is the Constitution. There are even provisions for the Constitution to be changed. Or are you finally admitting you are not interested in the Constitution and simply want to foment insurrection?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

None. When it was written "well regulated" meant. "In good order" and "well equipped." Which is why the militia act of the same time period defined all men with a few exceptions part of the militia and instructed them to provide themselves (IE buy their own) with the same arms and basic kit of the average infantry soldier. Thus, we can see quite plainly that the intent of the second amendment was that all of the people be armed with the same basic small arms of the regular army.

Then where are these well regulated militias required by the Constitution? Does a strict interpretation mean that all able bodied citizens must enroll in the National Guard?

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?

Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?

Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.

What am I proposing, exactly?

this issue is simple, the government doesn't want the general populace to possess at large, weapons that would make them capable of defending themselves against government institutions. so it becomes a matter of swaying public opinion at that point. and what sways public opinion better than publicized tragedy involving guns. don't forcefully take the guns away from people. make the people want to take the guns away from themselves. because "people can't be trusted to own weapons of whatever class". This is simply an issue of control. Firearms are a deadly tool just like many others out there. Many issues relating to them can be stemmed simply with education concerning them. but, again that would go against what "they" want, they're not looking to educate the populace on firearms so they can be safely owned and used. they are looking to frighten and disarm.

create the conflict and let the people restrict their own rights so it doesn't look like the government is just coming in and stripping them away.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

When the people lose their only tool strong enough to resist an oppressive government rest assured open tyranny will follow. Hitler, Stalin and Mao - all came to power and among their first goals was to disarm the populace.

Bonnie and Clyde on crack coc aine.

What DJ is having trouble with is perspective.
DJ where do criminals belong?

reply to post by CallmeRaskolnikov


Where do you get that from the law in the OP?

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by James1982

 

The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.

Had what? The Constitution is the Constitution. There are even provisions for the Constitution to be changed. Or are you finally admitting you are not interested in the Constitution and simply want to foment insurrection?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

None. When it was written "well regulated" meant. "In good order" and "well equipped." Which is why the militia act of the same time period defined all men with a few exceptions part of the militia and instructed them to provide themselves (IE buy their own) with the same arms and basic kit of the average infantry soldier. Thus, we can see quite plainly that the intent of the second amendment was that all of the people be armed with the same basic small arms of the regular army.

Then where are these well regulated militias required by the Constitution? Does a strict interpretation mean that all able bodied citizens must enroll in the National Guard?

By law, if you are a male between the ages of 16 and 65, ARE part of the militia. The militia act divided the militia into two parts--the organized and the unorganized. The organized militia is comprised of those who actively drill (see national guard) the unorganized militia is everyone else.

reply to post by randyvs

What DJ is having trouble with is perspective.
DJ where do criminals belong?

Define "criminals."

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?

Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.

What am I proposing, exactly?

I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001
reply to post by James1982

 

The debate is over. No more pushing goalposts. No more lies. No more bull. People have HAD IT.

Had what? The Constitution is the Constitution. There are even provisions for the Constitution to be changed. Or are you finally admitting you are not interested in the Constitution and simply want to foment insurrection?

The Constitution does have an amendment process, you are correct. However, until a Constitutional Convention is called and the Second Amendment is either repealed or changed. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says what it says. It does not say, "only in militia service." It does not say "only for the police or military." It does not say "only at the whim of the electorate." It does not say "only those arms that idiots think are not too scary."

It says "a well regulated militia." Regulated. What part of "regulated" are you having a problem with?

None. When it was written "well regulated" meant. "In good order" and "well equipped." Which is why the militia act of the same time period defined all men with a few exceptions part of the militia and instructed them to provide themselves (IE buy their own) with the same arms and basic kit of the average infantry soldier. Thus, we can see quite plainly that the intent of the second amendment was that all of the people be armed with the same basic small arms of the regular army.

Then where are these well regulated militias required by the Constitution? Does a strict interpretation mean that all able bodied citizens must enroll in the National Guard?

By law, if you are a male between the ages of 16 and 65, ARE part of the militia. The militia act divided the militia into two parts--the organized and the unorganized. The organized militia is comprised of those who actively drill (see national guard) the unorganized militia is everyone else.

Is the "unorganized militia" expected to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land?

DJW001

NavyDoc

buster2010

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

The people already own these firearms so no one is having to ask permission to own these firearms. The 2nd amendment doesn't say what kind firearm you are allowed to have and the Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms does not violate the 2nd amendment.

And when giving a speech you have laws you have to follow as well. Simply because slander is against the law.

Slander injures another person. Simply owning a firearm injures no one. What is proposed is like limiting your ability to speak just because you MIGHT slander someone.

edit on 3-3-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

But automatic weapons are intended to hurt people! It is why they were invented, and why people wish to own them.

A weapon sitting in a case hurts no one, unless you think they possess magical powers. A weapon used to hurt a criminal and stop him from doing his crime does hurt someone, but for the good.

I harm no one if I have one or a dozen machine guns sitting in my safe, just as I harm no one just by speaking my mind. If I use my words to harm another, I am held accountable. Likewise, if I use my machine guns to harm another I am held (or should be held) accountable. Simply having the ability to speak or shoot harms no one at all.

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

NavyDoc

DJW001

beezzer

DJW001

beezzer
When you have to ask permission from a central authority to own a fire arm, then it is no longer a right.

It is an allowance.

Right now, the government wants to "allow" people (who pass a certain criteria) to own a select choice of fire arm of their choosing.



This is the same thing as giving a speech, but having the government "ok" the wording before you are "allowed" to give it.

How is it you "know" what the government "wants?" Don't the laws that are passed speak for themselves?

Redundant.

Through laws, the government "tells" you what they will "approve" when they give you permission to own what they deem is appropriate.

Very good. Now, what part of the law in the OP says you cannot have any guns?

Fascinating. So you wouldn't believe your right to free speech was not infringed and it would be okay with you if you could only use a pen and not a typewriter or if the law banned use of word processors but not manual printing presses? After all, you can have some free speech and not all of it is banned.

Completely nonsensical argument. So long as there is a means of expression, one has the right and ability to express one's self.

Not a nonsensical argument at all. If the state limits how you are permitted to express yourself, then your rights to express yourself are being infringed, even if you can express yourself other ways. If the state tells you how you must say what you want to say, your right to say things is infringed.

But even the "freedom of speech" comes with certain restrictions. Do libel laws mean the state is telling you what to say or how you say it?

Not at all. Libel laws do not restrict your freedom of speech at all but only hold you responsible if what you say harms another person. A proper comparison would be that I could own as many machine guns as I want but am only held responsible if my use of them harms another person. What you propose would be like restricting someone's speech because they MIGHT libel someone.

What am I proposing, exactly?

I'm sorry. From the context of the discussion, I'd assumed you were for gun control. Just to make things clear, are you for or against gun control?

I am in favor of reasonable standards of licensing. For example, in order to purchase a weapon, any weapon, the purchaser must show that they have passed an appropriate training course, involving safe handling of that weapon. They should also be required to purchase insurance, since accidents do happen. Once someone has demonstrated their proficiency there should be no limits placed on their ownership of that class of weapon. Obviously, some classes of weapon will require more training than others. Does that sound threatening to anyone? If so, why?

DJW001
Then where are these well regulated militias required by the Constitution? Does a strict interpretation mean that all able bodied citizens must enroll in the National Guard?

No, there's no need for all citizens to enroll in the National Guard. There are two classes of militia under US law. Organized, which includes the National Guard, and 'unorganized', which is everyone who is not in the National Guard who otherwise fit conditions of the law.

Militia: Composition and Classes

Granted, this law was geared toward conditions for a military draft, not the 2nd amendment. I suspect that if placed into the context of the 2nd amendment and its relation to individual rights, it would have to apply to everyone under the 14th amendment. Still, its the closest thing to a legal definition of militia that exists in US law.

Regardless, I think you're too caught up on the whole 'militia' argument anyway. I suppose you can interpret it any way you want, but the Supreme Court, as recently as 2008, has said that there is an individual right conferred by the 2nd amendment unconnected to militia service.