| Author | Message | ||
     Mortarmanmike120 |
Ok, agree to disagree. Have a good day and keep the shiny side up. | ||
| Old_man |
Remember, In our country - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. | ||
| Slowride |
See now you have to go and get all theoretical on us. We have "NOT" been the government for a long time. Remember, In our country - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. That is just Silly~ | ||
| P_squared |
But to those who think it necessary to control our government. - I think it silly. I tend to think the folks who thought it up to ensure we have that RIGHT were actually some pretty smart fellers. And if it's not a deterrent, then can someone tell me HONESTLY why guns & ammo are flying off the shelves and why some folks are trying to hard to infringe upon said RIGHT? We can factually shoot holes all day into the STATED reasons for gun control, so what is the REAL reason for gun control by the Government? I can only draw 1 conclusion, and it's not a good one. | ||
| Slowride |
I tend to think the folks who thought it up to ensure we have that RIGHT were actually some pretty smart fellers. +1 I think someone has been doing a little research. I for one happen to catch the HBO series John Adams a while ago. WoW! Was that an eye opener compared to today's government. I had to read up on our forefathers and it was truly empowering. (Message edited by slowride on March 04, 2009) | ||
| Baybueller |
I believe the government will need to invent some heinous accusations to cause the military to fire on its own people. | ||
| Old_man |
The contention is not that the military will first fire on the people. But is suggested that the people will be the ones to take up arms against them. | ||
| Old_man |
After you overthrow the elected government, who is going to decide who is in charge? Or is it, then, every man for himself? | ||
| Old_man |
And I said - 'WE' are the government. Not 'YOU' are the government. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe the government would have to go a long way to convince most soldiers that their fellow citizens were the enemy. I can see most soldiers sitting that one out. Are you kidding me? Hello?  Boston Massacre 1770  Haun's Mill Massacre  Wounded Knee Massacre  Kent State These are just a few of the ones here in the US NOT including the Civil War where Federal Troops fired upon and killed US Citizens. Army Regulations: Army Regulations under No. 50050 “Employment of Troops” and “Enforcement of the Laws” cover the subject quite fully. Section I. Recites the statutes and penalties concerning the use of troops as a “posse comitatus.” Section II. In addition to quoting the constitutional and statutory authorities already referred to, this section gives a long list of sundry other acts of Congress authorizing and defining the use of Federal Troops in special cases, most of which are now practically impossible of occurrence. These statutes cover; Public Lands, Peonage, Public Health, Indians, Extradition, Neutrality, Guano Islands, and Customs. The section then goes on to specify the actions governing the use of Federal Troops in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii. These statutes are identical in spirit and in general specify that; the Governor may call on the Commanders of Military or Naval forces of the United States to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. Further, if the public safety demands it, he may suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus or place the islands or a part of them under Martial Law. Provided, “That whenever a Governor exercises any of the above authorities he shall at once notify the President of his act and of the reasons for it.” Section III of A.R.50050 specifies the procedure governing the use of Federal Troops in Domestic Disturbances. Par.5. Application for Troops, specifies: a. “Application for the use of troops should originate with the civil authority. This application should be made to the President. In case the application is made by civil authority directly to a local commander; Such commander, whenever time admits, must forward the application to the War Department, with a statement of all material facts, for the consideration and action of the President.” b. Emergency, “In the case of sudden and unexpected invasion, insurrection, or riot, endangering the public property of the United States, or in case of attempted or threatened robbery or interruption of the United States mails, or other equivalent emergency so imminent as to render it dangerous to await instruction . an officer of the army may take such action before the receipt of instruction as the circumstances of the case . justify, and will promptly report his action, and the circumstances requiring it to the Adjutant General . for the information of the President.” Par.6. Proclamation: Here is repeated the requirement of R.S.5300. Par.7. Command: a. “In the enforcement of laws, troops are employed as a part of the military power of the United States and act under the orders of the President as Commander in Chief.” b. “They cannot be directed to act under the orders of any civil officer.” c. “The commanding officers of troops so employed are directly responsible to their military superiors.” d. “Any unlawful or unauthorized act on their part would NOT be excusable on the ground of an order or request received by them from a Marshall or any other civil authority.” Par.8. Tactical: a. “Troops called into action against a mob forcibly resisting or obstructing the execution of the laws of the United States or attempting to destroy property belonging to, or under the protection of, the United States are governed by the general regulations of the Army and apply military tactics in respect to the manner in which they shall act to accomplish the desired end.” (THIS INCLUDES BULLETS SEE BELOW) b. “It is a purely tactical question in what manner they shall use the weapons with which they are armed; whether by fire of musketry and artillery, or by the use of the bayonet and saber, or by both, and at what stage of the operations each or either mode of attack shall be employed. This tactical question shall be decided by the immediate commander of the troops, according to his judgment of the situation. The fire of troops SHOULD be withheld until timely warning has been given to the innocent who may be mingled with the mob. Troops must never fire into a crowd unless ordered by their commanding officer, EXCEPT that single selected sharp shooters may shoot down individual rioters who have FIRED UPON or THROWN MISSILES AT the troops. As a general rule, only the bayonet (or saber) should be used against mixed crowds in the first stages of a revolt, but as soon as sufficient warning has been given to enable the innocent to separate themselves from the guilty, the action of the troops should be governed solely by the tactical considerations involved in the duty they are ordered to perform. They should make their flow so effective as to promptly suppress all resistance to lawful authority, and should stop the destruction of life the moment lawless resistance has ceased. Punishment belongs not to the troops, but to the courts of justice.” Federal Troops HAVE and WILL fire upon both Armed and Unarmed Civilians. The problem is when the group is large where does the killing stop? It stops when the resistance is sufficient to slow and halt the advance of Federal Troops. That doesn't occur with harsh words. | ||
| M2me |
In the first place, it is not a ban on anything. It's a licensing requirement. Why do we love to call every law a "ban" on something? We have licensing requirements for all sorts of things. Driving is one. Does the licensing requirement for driving and operating a motorcycle "ban" you from doing those things or even owning a car or motorcycle? Of course not. I doubt that this legislation has a snowball's chance of making it out of committee though. It's good that we aware of this legislation and if you feel strongly about it write or call your Representative. But don't waste your time pissing and moaning about how "they're taking your guns away". They're not. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's a licensing requirement. It is legal to produce, package, market, and sell marijuana in this country. You only need to secure a "license" to do so.   Ever tried to get a "license" to own and keep a gun in your HOME in D.C.? If the government has the ability to determine who can and can not have a gun license, they government has the ability to make sure NO ONE can have a firearm. You may call it a "license", the rest of us will see it for what it is, a road to a ban. | ||
| M2me |
If the government has the ability to determine who can and can not have a gun license, they government has the ability to make sure NO ONE can have a firearm. If the government has the ability to determine who can and can not have a marijuana license, the government has the ability to make sure NO ONE can have marijuana. Ummm, no. Lots of folks have marijuana and you may be surprised to learn that most of them don't have a license. Your most recent marijuana stamp expired on June 30, 1946. It's been expired for nearly 63 years. You might want to think about getting that renewed. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The National Guard is trained and will fire upon a mob if given the order. I went through that training twice a year, every year that I was in. We were called out for the WTO and the Mardi Gras incidents in Seattle, boots on the ground, rounds in the mags. If the police were over run in either situation, we were there to take over. Most of the tear gas for WTO was our stock, not Seattle PD. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If the government has the ability to determine who can and can not have a marijuana license, the government has the ability to make sure NO ONE can have marijuana. Ummm, no. Lots of folks have marijuana and you may be surprised to learn that most of them don't have a license. Exactly my point. 20-25% of ALL Federal inmates are in for marijuana charges. Of those 88-90% are in for simple possession. YOU CAN'T GET A LICENSE. ALL 35M American marijuana users are criminals. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." | ||
| P_squared |
In the first place, it is not a ban on anything. It's a licensing requirement. So can we get a licensing requirement on all of our other RIGHTS as well? License for Free Speech. License for Life. License for Liberty. License for the pursuit of happiness. No such licenses you say? That sounds idiotic you say? So does a 'licensing' requirement for the RIGHT to bear arms. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's the difference in a correct and a corrupted thought pattern. A correct thought pattern sees a right as one that is not GRANTED but simply is. A corrupted thought pattern sees a right as something that is granted by a GOVERNMENT and can be given, taken, or modified. The really twisted, corrupted thought patterns seek to "license" rights as privileges and grant privileges as "rights". Right to healthcare Right to home ownership Right to a particular standard of living | ||
| Bill0351 |
When this topic is debated I think it's important to read the actual amendment and the most recent case law. The first part of the amendment is highlighted in red and was affirmed to be secondary to the part I highlighted in blue. The final decision is the last paragraph in green. DC vs Heller Re: Second Amendment "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." (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3 Syllabus prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64. 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed. | ||
| Baybueller |
You do not have a right to ride your motorcycle on your public roads. It is deemed a privilege, granted by the state, which can be revoked at any time for a wide variety of excuses. Riding while revoked could land one in jail. | ||
| P_squared |
Bill, I do believe your punctuation is incorrect. The version passed by the House & Senate: 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. The version ratified by the States is as you have above. The pesky commas and capitilization sure can change the meaning a 'lil bit, don't you think? But this 'lil nugget sure is interesting: Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. So, no ruling from SCOTUS on if licensing requirements are constitutional. "..does not address the licensing requirement." I understand precedence has already been set for certain licensing, e.g. FFL, Class 3, etc., etc. I'm not advocating the removal of those requirements. I'm against MORE licensing that sets the stage for removing one of my RIGHTS. | ||
| Bill0351 |
I'm aware of the punctuation differences. I had to pick one, so I picked the one the states ratified. Some people have made a large deal out of the differences between the two, but they both mean exactly the same thing. If it is read out loud as a Shakespearean drama maybe you can find a functional difference, but on paper it's a stretch. Besides, the court found the first part to be an introduction to the second part, and that the second part is where the "right" is contained. Anyway, I posted it because I think it has a lot more relevance than pictures of marijuana stamps and dead college students. To me is shows constitutional law it its finest. The right was upheld and the official interpretation was clarified. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." I think that phrase says a lot. The state isn't allowed to control your rights to the point that their control takes them away. DC tried that and failed. You have free use of your rights until your use begins to interfere with the rights of society as a whole. I'm not too worried about it right now. I think my rights, the way I understand them, are currently safe. Heller did a lot to calm my nerves that way. On a side note: I just got a new 870 on Wednesday and I'm going out shoot it this weekend. It's my new home defense, deer, and clay bird combo. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
I like to think what sets Americans apart from alot of other people in the world is that we believe we are born with the right to protect ourselves and family. Its not something we need granted by the government. Americans are not so much in love with guns as they are with independence and freedom. I think that idea may be shifting though but I hope Iam wrong. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I dont have the time to research this but I believe there were some disgruntled veterans who set up camp on the Washington Mall during the early 1900's and the President sent in the Army to remove them, resulting in casualties. Seems to me it would be harder to get a soldier to fire on a veteran than a citizen. | ||
| Swampy |
I understand what Baybueller is saying but, why is it that it is a privilege to travel, using common sense there is no limitation on travelling on foot,follow basic rules, or on a bicycle, or with a horse, why all of a sudden is it a privilege to use a motor vehicle? It needs to be discussed, because for the good of the people we already have seen bans on performance exhausts, kiddy cycles, kiddy clothes and the like. We now rent our homes from whatever governing authority it is that lays claim to it(with the federalization of the banks we will soon be buying our homes from the government and paying loan payments to the government, plus paying lifetime taxes to the government) This has all incrementally come to us in the form of government programs that now have ballooned into enormous self serving organizations, that we are now forced to pay for. God help us! But hey, I'm still smiling! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Anyway, I posted it because I think it has a lot more relevance than pictures of marijuana stamps and dead college students. Only if you live in the theoretical the world of Constitutional Law. The PRACTICAL application of the laws is all that matters. In this case, the Federal Government has a continuous and pervasive habit of using licensing to control access. There is a mechanism for altering the language of the Constitution. For the last 60 years, we have had the courts acting to subvert that mechanism. Heller is merely an incremental step in the alteration of a right. If that makes you feel all calm inside, so be it. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on March 05, 2009) | ||
| Bigdaddy |
I dont have the time to research this but I believe there were some disgruntled veterans who set up camp on the Washington Mall during the early 1900's and the President sent in the Army to remove them, resulting in casualties. Seems to me it would be harder to get a soldier to fire on a veteran than a citizen. True story and the troops removing the veterans were led by a Gen. Douglas Macarthur. | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
Sorry FB don't have time to respond today and will busy all weekend. Have to be brief. I live under posse comitatus on a daily basis. I know what it means. I won't go into it on here. I will concede that yes, some troops would/have/will fire on the civilian population. Howerever I stand by my assertion that in the event of a large revolution/insurrection the bulk of military forces will be as equally divided as the population. Depends on how good a job the CIC does in criminalizing and maligning the revolters. Another strategy is to use troops outside their geographic area. TN troops in Cali, etc... Ya'll have a good one. Back next week. | ||
| Bill0351 |
"Only if you live in the theoretical the world of Constitutional Law." The theoretical world of Constitutional law is the source of all of our rights. To me, Heller set a precedent that helps individual gun ownership a lot more than it hurts. It explicitly stated that laws can not be so restrictive that they hinder the Second Amendment. Even though the first part of the amendment was found to be subordinate to the last part, "well regulated" wasn't put there by accident. If there was a constitutional right to keep and bear drugs, I would see the relevance of the stamps. As it is, I'm not buying that line of argument. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It explicitly stated that laws can not be so restrictive that they hinder the Second Amendment. How do you prove that the application of licensing laws is "so restrictive"? In DC, you could get a license. The problem was that they just didn't open the licensing office. How can you prove that the Government is intentionally slow walking licensing when the Government will simply claim "financial limitations" and "budgetary constraints". | ||
| Liquorwhere |
Well I see the debate has come even to a motorcycle board. I haven't read the beginnings of this thread but I would assume by the comments it is directed toward the Blair Holt HR 45 that is currently in the judiciary committee. I have read this particular piece of proposed legislation, and if it were to emerge from committee in its current form I don't think if it were passed and signed into law that it would fly under the radar of the constitution and I believe it would be challenged, by whom is the question. I would agree that licensing is the governments ability to exclude and deny access to those it "deems" unfit or not entitled to access to a particular privilege or right granted under the law. There are two particular parts of HR 45 that trouble me, one is the psychiatric testing that can be used to "deem" a person unfit to own and carry a fire arm, and the second is the change of address that can land a person in jail for up to two years and a fine (maximum penalty). I would argue that this type of legislative mandate would or could be helpful or harmful depending on how it is wielded and interpreted amongst those that enforce the law. It seems a tasty "out" for the government to then determine what is and what is not "psychological competence" and excluded many people from a "license" therefore by default creating a de facto "ban" on ownership thus creating a criminal of that person that refuses to give up his or her weapon due the results of said "test". The specific's of that point could bring many of you to the point of contention with the newly elected regime and the legislative efforts of that new regime to bring about, in my humble opinion, a more socialist way of life to a once capitalist society. Do I disagree with this socialization of America?? You are damn right I do, and be it imaginary to those of us that feel impinged at this moment in time or a real enemy at the gates, the prepared person is usually the person left standing....to that end my concealed weapons permit is in process, I have purchased more than one new weapon including a Keltec PF 9 that will be my primary carried weapon once my permit is issued, and have been stocking up a bit on rounds. Look whether you believe that a well armed populace is a deterrent to a government bent on usurping the rights granted by those who fought, founded and framed this country or not, the one truth that history tells us time and again, check from any period you want to check from, is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely and that empires rise and fall, those left to build the next empire ALWAYS built it at the tip of a sword. My six pence. Good thread, catch ya'll later. |
