Victim du jour

[Sallow]

Do Tea Baggers have a problem with voting?

Most conservatives have a problem with voting.

They don't like it. No Sir. No one bit.

I like Voting.

Yeah..but you don't like ME voting.

 

[del]

Most conservatives have a problem with voting.

They don't like it. No Sir. No one bit.

I like Voting.

Yeah..but you don't like ME voting.

get over yourself

no one cares

 

[rightwinger]

Neg'd for being intentionally obtuse.

I know you're smart enough to make the connection between security and defense.

Sorry..

But there is a big difference between self defense and national defense

States Rights Issue.

VOLOKH - FORMAT 5/16/2007 2:56:03 PM
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SELF-DEFENSE
AND DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
EUGENE VOLOKH*
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 400
II. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL “RIGHT TO DEFEND LIFE”
PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 401
III. CASES INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS........................... 407
A. The Property Defense Cases........................................... 407
B. Self-Defense in Criminal Cases ..................................... 409
C. Self-Defense/Defense of Property and Civil Liberty.......... 411
D. Self-Defense and Private Employer Actions .................... 411
E. Limitations ................................................................. 412
IV. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE UNDER STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS ...................... 414
V. IS THERE A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
SELF-DEFENSE.................................................................. 415
A. Leading Early Commentators ....................................... 416
B. Cases .......................................................................... 416
C. Second Amendment ..................................................... 418
VI. CONCLUSION................................................................... 418
* Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA ([email protected]).

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n2/Volokh.pdf

I believe we were talking about the second amendment

 

[Intense]

Most conservatives have a problem with voting.

They don't like it. No Sir. No one bit.

I like Voting.

Yeah..but you don't like ME voting.

Not true at all Sallow. I think you should vote, the first Wednesday in November. Nah. Just kidding. I think We should each Vote, once, each Election. It is a Civic Duty.

 

[Intense]

“Everybody here’s got to vote. If we go back & keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these son of a bitches out”

Yep, that's the remark that made the Teapees pee their pants.

Yes.

That he said take them out, instead of vote them out, is the source of their incontinence.

I object to the use of sons of bitches, to be honest, not to the meaning of the statement.

The problem is not the meaning of the statement, but, there is a problem with implication and association. That is the point. Either both sides are in agreement in toning down the rhetoric or they are not. My understanding is tat the intention is to be more vigilant on both sides.

 

[Sallow]

I like Voting.

Yeah..but you don't like ME voting.

get over yourself

no one cares

But but..I care..

And I am hungry.

Hmmmm...emu fritters.

 

[manifold]

The Right to Defend Ones Life against Brutality, Harm, Forfeit, is A Natural Right. Like we are supposed to raise our hands and ask for permission first, and wait for a reply from some Bureaucrat or Administrator sorta misses the point, don't you think?

The second amendment remedy quote was a reference to taking up arms against our government.

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

 

[rightwinger]

The Right to Defend Ones Life against Brutality, Harm, Forfeit, is A Natural Right. Like we are supposed to raise our hands and ask for permission first, and wait for a reply from some Bureaucrat or Administrator sorta misses the point, don't you think?

The second amendment remedy quote was a reference to taking up arms against our government.

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

We would love to hear them

 

[manifold]

The second amendment remedy quote was a reference to taking up arms against our government.

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

We would love to hear them

here's one

 

[Intense]

The second amendment remedy quote was a reference to taking up arms against our government.

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

We would love to hear them

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. -Madison
The Federalist #46

 

[Ravi]

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

We would love to hear them

here's one

That's the same thing.

 

[Intense]

Introduction
The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to. The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias. For almost seventy years following its cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court ducked the issue, finally to resolve the question in its much anticipated 2008 decision, District of Columbia v Heller.

Miller was subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia.

In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause. The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision.

Heller left open the question of whether the right to bear arms was enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation? In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there was a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then. In 2010, in the case of McDonald v Chicago, the U. S. Supreme Court held (5 to 4) that the 2nd Amendment right has been incorporated through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and is fully enforceable against the states. The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, proceeded to strike down Chicago's gun regulation insofar as it prohibited the private possession in the home of handguns for self-defense. Justice Thomas, concurring, would have held the right to bear arms to be a right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, an approach to applying Bill of Rights protections against the states first rejected in the 19th-century Slaughter-House Cases and never used since. The Right to Bear Arms

 

[jillian]

Link(s)?

The latest is them demanding an apology from some union dude because he called them sons of bitches.

you forgot the link

thanks

you don't watch the news or read?

you could always go look at one of the rightwngnut threads. *shrug*

 

[Intense]

THE HERITAGE OF OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF STEARNS *

There is an old adage that says you need to look where you have been to learn where you are going. I believe that it is helpful, and sometimes necessary, to review the issues of the day through a political and historical perspective ¾ looking where we have been. Such a linear approach adds context to a discussion, providing an understanding as to why a sound policy in the past may or may not remain so today. This is especially applicable to the topic of this paper.

Full comprehension of the gun control debate depends on seeing the origin of the right to bear arms and considering its relevance today. The Founding Fathers did not create the concept sustaining a right to bear arms, they merely incorporated that right into the Constitution of the United States.[1] This right, as with many other rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, pre-dated colonial America.[2] Of all the rights held or rejected by man and woman, this right, essential to self defense, may reach back to the dawn of humanity.

There are three points critical to this discussion ¾ that our legitimate right to own firearms are based on the need for self defense, the need for self support such as hunting, and the need for communal defense (militia). Opponents of the private ownership of firearms seize on the last point as the sole reason for the existence of the Second Amendment.[3] They argue that the United States of America no longer has a militia system, thus negating the [Page 14] right of individuals to own arms. They refuse to see this fundamental right in light of the other needs previously mentioned. In doing so, they ignore the body of historic events that led to the inclusion of the right to bear arms initially in the English Bill of Rights and then the American Bill of Rights a century later.[4]

This and other rights must be openly acknowledged in order to prevent their suppression. These basic rights are not pulled out of thin air. There are specific reasons why such rights are guaranteed to all citizens. Generally, rights are enumerated as inviolable because they have either been denied or they are threatened.

Our Second Amendment right to bear arms has its direct antecedent in the English Bill of Rights which compressed the various reasons for owning a firearm into a right as a result of the government's efforts to disarm its citizens.[5] Events in English history provided many of the seeds that would become the fruit that we know as our Constitutional rights, among them the right to bear arms.

"The right of citizens to be armed not only is unusual, but evolved in England in an unusual manner: it began as a duty."[6] Life in Europe of the middle ages revolved around a series of obligations. Military service was a common requirement to a superior, and usually, it was bring your own weapon.[7] To prevent their troops from skimping on weaponry, laws evolved which described the types of weapons that the underlings would maintain.[8] Henry II of England did just that through the Assize of Arms of 1181:

Let every holder of a knight's fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight's fees in his demesne. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattels of rent to the value of 16 marks, have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattels or rent worth 10 marks have an 'aubergel' and a headpiece of iron, and a lance.[9]

Not only were knights and free laymen required to keep and bear arms, their heirs were entitled to these weapons upon their death.[10] What we have [Page 15] here are citizen soldiers, the medieval precursor of the militia. This military system was dictated by the fact that lords and monarchs lacked the financial resources to maintain standing armies and by the nature of obligated service common to the era.[11] The value of citizen soldiers who viewed their service as a civic duty was recognized by the ancient Greeks and other civilizations.[12] This value would take hold in 16th and 17th century England and later would sink deep roots in America.[13]

THE HERITAGE OF OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

 

[Ravi]

The latest is them demanding an apology from some union dude because he called them sons of bitches.

you forgot the link

thanks

you don't watch the news or read?

you could always go look at one of the rightwngnut threads. *shrug*

He's a little off kilter. His neighbor had to put away the pool float toys.

 

[jillian]

you forgot the link

thanks

you don't watch the news or read?

you could always go look at one of the rightwngnut threads. *shrug*

He's a little off kilter. His neighbor had to put away the pool float toys.

i feel his pain.

heh..

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Right to Defend Ones Life against Brutality, Harm, Forfeit, is A Natural Right. Like we are supposed to raise our hands and ask for permission first, and wait for a reply from some Bureaucrat or Administrator sorta misses the point, don't you think?

The second amendment remedy quote was a reference to taking up arms against our government.

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

Let's put the reference in context and see who can come up with any other 'valid' interpretation, other than mine:

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's one valid interpretation. But not the only one.

We would love to hear them

here's one

That is not an interpretation you can make of the 'second amendment remedies' quote I just gave you,

which if by any chance someone doesn't know where that came from that is Sharron Angle's.

 

[California Girl]

is now the Tea Party.

So much boo hooing from them lately.

And this is of any significance.... why exactly?

Although, when it comes to cry babies... I would have said the current Administration is doing a fine job of adding significantly to the Romper Room. Did someone steal the democrats pacifiers or something?

 

[California Girl]

THE HERITAGE OF OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF STEARNS *

There is an old adage that says you need to look where you have been to learn where you are going. I believe that it is helpful, and sometimes necessary, to review the issues of the day through a political and historical perspective ¾ looking where we have been. Such a linear approach adds context to a discussion, providing an understanding as to why a sound policy in the past may or may not remain so today. This is especially applicable to the topic of this paper.

Full comprehension of the gun control debate depends on seeing the origin of the right to bear arms and considering its relevance today. The Founding Fathers did not create the concept sustaining a right to bear arms, they merely incorporated that right into the Constitution of the United States.[1] This right, as with many other rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, pre-dated colonial America.[2] Of all the rights held or rejected by man and woman, this right, essential to self defense, may reach back to the dawn of humanity.

There are three points critical to this discussion ¾ that our legitimate right to own firearms are based on the need for self defense, the need for self support such as hunting, and the need for communal defense (militia). Opponents of the private ownership of firearms seize on the last point as the sole reason for the existence of the Second Amendment.[3] They argue that the United States of America no longer has a militia system, thus negating the [Page 14] right of individuals to own arms. They refuse to see this fundamental right in light of the other needs previously mentioned. In doing so, they ignore the body of historic events that led to the inclusion of the right to bear arms initially in the English Bill of Rights and then the American Bill of Rights a century later.[4]

This and other rights must be openly acknowledged in order to prevent their suppression. These basic rights are not pulled out of thin air. There are specific reasons why such rights are guaranteed to all citizens. Generally, rights are enumerated as inviolable because they have either been denied or they are threatened.

Our Second Amendment right to bear arms has its direct antecedent in the English Bill of Rights which compressed the various reasons for owning a firearm into a right as a result of the government's efforts to disarm its citizens.[5] Events in English history provided many of the seeds that would become the fruit that we know as our Constitutional rights, among them the right to bear arms.

"The right of citizens to be armed not only is unusual, but evolved in England in an unusual manner: it began as a duty."[6] Life in Europe of the middle ages revolved around a series of obligations. Military service was a common requirement to a superior, and usually, it was bring your own weapon.[7] To prevent their troops from skimping on weaponry, laws evolved which described the types of weapons that the underlings would maintain.[8] Henry II of England did just that through the Assize of Arms of 1181:

Let every holder of a knight's fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight's fees in his demesne. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattels of rent to the value of 16 marks, have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattels or rent worth 10 marks have an 'aubergel' and a headpiece of iron, and a lance.[9]

Not only were knights and free laymen required to keep and bear arms, their heirs were entitled to these weapons upon their death.[10] What we have [Page 15] here are citizen soldiers, the medieval precursor of the militia. This military system was dictated by the fact that lords and monarchs lacked the financial resources to maintain standing armies and by the nature of obligated service common to the era.[11] The value of citizen soldiers who viewed their service as a civic duty was recognized by the ancient Greeks and other civilizations.[12] This value would take hold in 16th and 17th century England and later would sink deep roots in America.[13]

THE HERITAGE OF OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

I don't think our left wing buddies are interested in anything other than a bitchfest about the dreaded TEA Party.

I think they're scared. Whatever you do, do NOT sneak up on a Democrat.... they're very, very jumpy at the moment.