Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I predicted that obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional dumb ass. Dumb ass I'm not a know it all but just in certain things I am more knowledgeable than you.
what about the 2012 Presidential election...come on smarty pants...enlighten us all.
I predicted obama would lose like most people did. What in the hell does this type of questioning have to do will courting rulings on the second amendment.
I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.
Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.
According too Miller vs. U.S. in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.
So how does that justify the possession/ownership of fireams for defence against criminals?
After all, that isn't the purpose of a militia.
it is NOT collective versus individual.Here are some more amendments that speak of the people do these also mean a collective or individual right?
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 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.gawd, you're dense
What is the hell are you blathering about?
More people are killed each year with knives, rocks and bats than with guns......
I dare you to come and take my rocks!
Suicide kills more people than anything else.
Cars are #2
More people die in airplane crashes than are killed with "assault weapons" each year.
Get a grip folks, taking guns away from legal owners won't stop crime or even deter it. If all the lawful gun owners turned in all their guns today then tomorrow the violent crime rate in the USA would skyrocket. If we caught all the criminals in the US today then the violent crime rate would plumett tomorrow. Why not focus on the problem - get the criminals off the streets and lock them up. Right now we are prosecuting fewer gun crimes than ever before. Part of that is that gun crimes are dropping but the other part of that is that the judicial system uses plea bargaining to drop the charges on crooks so it doesn't take up the court's precious time. That lets the crooks back on the street where they can re-offend sooner than if we had taken the extra week to put them away for 20 or more years.
what about the 2012 Presidential election...come on smarty pants...enlighten us all.
I predicted obama would lose like most people did. What in the hell does this type of questioning have to do will courting rulings on the second amendment.
MOST people did not.
You stated your expertise on predicting constitutional outcomes on case law and gun control. Just wanted to see you admit how shitty your track record of predictions on big issues is
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
Boston, Concord, Lexington Colonial Militias. The Colonies were in charge of the militias. Who in each town was in charge of regulating the militias?
After the American Revolution and after the Articles of Confederation do you know what the evolving thinking was of the role of militias and what constituted a militia well regulated?
There are tomes of scholarly articles on this.
---
here I found an internet piece you can start with
B. The Militia in State Constitutions and Bills of Rights
Provisions in the various declarations and constitutions of the colonies also reflected the beginnings of a divergence of opinions on the nature and purpose of the militia as an institution. Virginia, which was the first colony to adopt these documents, chose a constitution and bill of rights that was drafted by a committee, and was taken predominantly from the proposals of the conservative George Mason. [90]
The prevailing version recognized, "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." [91] It made no mention, however, of an individual right to arms.
The committee charged with the initial drafting of the Virginia documents was composed predominantly of large land owners. The Virginia Constitution, as finally adopted, looked to the maintenance of the status quo and reflected the Classical Republican emphasis on the establishment of a stable republic. The Militia and the Constitution
The only tine the federal government had control of the militia was through the governors authorization because of an emergency other than that the federal government had no control over the militias.
According too Miller vs. U.S. in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.
So how does that justify the possession/ownership of fireams for defence against criminals?
After all, that isn't the purpose of a militia.
1. the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting so we'll get that out of the way
Now
2 the second amendment wasn't just about defending against criminals (Burglars) It's main reason was to defend against foreign enemies and a tyrannical government.
it is NOT collective versus individual.
What is the hell are you blathering about?
"do these also mean a collective or individual right?" Do you forget your own words so easily?
I predicted obama would lose like most people did. What in the hell does this type of questioning have to do will courting rulings on the second amendment.
MOST people did not.
You stated your expertise on predicting constitutional outcomes on case law and gun control. Just wanted to see you admit how shitty your track record of predictions on big issues is
My expertise on the second amendment has nothing to so with predicting how the election would go. So their is no track record.
Now if you don't mind care to take a loo at Miller vs. U.S.?
So how does that justify the possession/ownership of fireams for defence against criminals?
After all, that isn't the purpose of a militia.
1. the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting so we'll get that out of the way
Now
2 the second amendment wasn't just about defending against criminals (Burglars) It's main reason was to defend against foreign enemies and a tyrannical government.
You're right!
I don't see anything about burglars or criminals or self defence or even hunting in the text of the second amendment.
So you agree that the only justifiable right to own firearms in the second amendment is in the service of a well-regulated militia?
MOST people did not.
You stated your expertise on predicting constitutional outcomes on case law and gun control. Just wanted to see you admit how shitty your track record of predictions on big issues is
My expertise on the second amendment has nothing to so with predicting how the election would go. So their is no track record.
Now if you don't mind care to take a loo at Miller vs. U.S.?
you thought most people...your words...believed Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. It appears you need to get out of your small world more often and rethink your ability to predict court outcomes based on case law.\
You do know the Obama Justice Dept argued more than one reason to rule in their favor? Both were addressed in Robert's opinion
Boston, Concord, Lexington Colonial Militias. The Colonies were in charge of the militias. Who in each town was in charge of regulating the militias?
After the American Revolution and after the Articles of Confederation do you know what the evolving thinking was of the role of militias and what constituted a militia well regulated?
There are tomes of scholarly articles on this.
---
here I found an internet piece you can start with
The only tine the federal government had control of the militia was through the governors authorization because of an emergency other than that the federal government had no control over the militias.
and...who said differently? Not Dante.
who had control over regulating the militias during the Colonial period and after the Revolution?
1. the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting so we'll get that out of the way
Now
2 the second amendment wasn't just about defending against criminals (Burglars) It's main reason was to defend against foreign enemies and a tyrannical government.
You're right!
I don't see anything about burglars or criminals or self defence or even hunting in the text of the second amendment.
So you agree that the only justifiable right to own firearms in the second amendment is in the service of a well-regulated militia?
Yes I believed it was the founders intent that every firearm OWNER would be trained with their firearm. And that's what Miller vs. U.S. said
"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time"
2009? thanks.In the Washington State constitution it states:
" SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual
citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not
be impaired..."
Article 1 section 8 of the US constitution shows the limits of federal interaction with the militia.
The Idaho state congress said it in 2009 as well as it can be stated from one political entity to another:
"LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixtieth Legislature First Regular Session 2009
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 3
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
REPRESENTING THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho assembled in the First Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that:
WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not simply provide for a collective right or a right for the states to establish militias ; rather it provides for the right of the people to keep and bear arms ; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ones self, family and possessions from either the private lawlessness of other persons or the tyranny of government ; and
WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear arms is also meant to protect the general private uses of firearms in activities such as hunting and other sporting activities ; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), recently struck down a firearms ban in the District of Columbia, explicitly ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess firearms for private use ; and
WHEREAS, despite this ruling, legislation has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives calling for a system of mandatory federal licensing of all firearm owners ; and
WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would require all firearm owners to apply for and carry a federally issued picture identification in order to keep any firearm in their homes ; and
WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would make it a federal crime to keep a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises including, under certain circumstances, American homes where a child may be present ; and
WHEREAS, the legislation introduced specifically purports to preempt any state or local law inconsistent with it ; and
WHEREAS, the introduced legislation, Blair Holts Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, is a direct imposition on each Americans individual right to keep and bear arms in their homes and for their protection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that members of the United States Congress cease and desist attempting to enact federal legislation impinging on the individual right of every American to keep and bear arms in any manner. Specifically, that members of Congress oppose the passage of the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, and any similar legislation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States."
My expertise on the second amendment has nothing to so with predicting how the election would go. So their is no track record.
Now if you don't mind care to take a loo at Miller vs. U.S.?
you thought most people...your words...believed Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. It appears you need to get out of your small world more often and rethink your ability to predict court outcomes based on case law.\
You do know the Obama Justice Dept argued more than one reason to rule in their favor? Both were addressed in Robert's opinion
Dude you're bouncing all over the place here. First it was the presidential election and now obamacare.
By the way as I first said obamacare was ruled unconstitutional obamatax was not.
In the Washington State constitution it states:
" SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual
citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not
be impaired..."
Article 1 section 8 of the US constitution shows the limits of federal interaction with the militia.
The Idaho state congress said it in 2009 as well as it can be stated from one political entity to another:
"LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixtieth Legislature First Regular Session 2009
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 3
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
A JOINT MEMORIAL
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
REPRESENTING THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho assembled in the First Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that:
WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not simply provide for a collective right or a right for the states to establish militias ; rather it provides for the right of the people to keep and bear arms ; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ones self, family and possessions from either the private lawlessness of other persons or the tyranny of government ; and
WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear arms is also meant to protect the general private uses of firearms in activities such as hunting and other sporting activities ; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), recently struck down a firearms ban in the District of Columbia, explicitly ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess firearms for private use ; and
WHEREAS, despite this ruling, legislation has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives calling for a system of mandatory federal licensing of all firearm owners ; and
WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would require all firearm owners to apply for and carry a federally issued picture identification in order to keep any firearm in their homes ; and
WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would make it a federal crime to keep a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises including, under certain circumstances, American homes where a child may be present ; and
WHEREAS, the legislation introduced specifically purports to preempt any state or local law inconsistent with it ; and
WHEREAS, the introduced legislation, Blair Holts Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, is a direct imposition on each Americans individual right to keep and bear arms in their homes and for their protection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that members of the United States Congress cease and desist attempting to enact federal legislation impinging on the individual right of every American to keep and bear arms in any manner. Specifically, that members of Congress oppose the passage of the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, and any similar legislation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States."
you thought most people...your words...believed Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. It appears you need to get out of your small world more often and rethink your ability to predict court outcomes based on case law.\
You do know the Obama Justice Dept argued more than one reason to rule in their favor? Both were addressed in Robert's opinion
Dude you're bouncing all over the place here. First it was the presidential election and now obamacare.
By the way as I first said obamacare was ruled unconstitutional obamatax was not.
Nope. Go back. Asked both in the first post questioning your claim of brilliance.
Obamacare was ruled constitutional.
