Another "assault weapon" hits the streets!

[RetiredGySgt]

Erroneously, yes.

States have the power to regulate their own militias, true.
But this doesnt preclude the legitimate formation of a militia without state sanction.

Only by competent Governmental agencies OR some other agency APPROVED by said State.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Only by competent Governmental agencies OR some other agency APPROVED by said State.

Or are you now admitting you support personal militias?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Or are you now admitting you support personal militias?

That's not a 'personal militia', at least not in the way I use the them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's not a 'personal militia', at least not in the way I use the them.

Your avoiding the question. Your also being misleading. I have already agreed that any lower level Governmental body can form a militia if the State does not regulate and form their own. BUT Joe Blow can NOT organize nor run a Militia, nor can Microsoft or any other organization unless the State Specifically authorizes it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your avoiding the question. Your also being misleading.

No, I'm not. YOU used the term 'personal militia'. That term, I think, means something to you that it doesnt mean to me. To ME it means that some warlord has put together a gourp of armed men to look after and/or achieve his personal interests.

Is that, more or less, what do you mean by the term 'personal militia'?
If not, then what?

 

[mattskramer]

And, again, what you fail to understand that not just ANY religious practice falls under the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment, just as not just anythign you might want to say qualifies as "free speech".

Heck. Why not? There is no limit stated concerning the right to bear arms. Likewise, there is no limit stated with respect to freedom of speech and religion. Just as you would conclude that people are free to buy as many guns and whatever types of guns that they want. I sould be free to practice whatever religion I want and to say what I want.

 

[mattskramer]

Why would you change the 2nd amendment to include limits on slander?

Woops. My mistake. I switched amendment numbers. I meant to say that perhaps we should edit the 1st amendment so that it includes limits on such things as slander.

 

[Shogun]

damn double posts...

Well, well, well. If it isn't the serious, elusive Leroy Green. I've been waiting a long time for this, Leroy. I am sick and tired of hearing these bullshit Superman stories about the wassa legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. Catches bullets with his teeth? Nigga please.


This Edit brought to you by Friends of Shogun For President!

 

[Shogun]

duuuuuude. we've covered this.

THE SUPREME COURT: Animal Sacrifice; Court, Citing Religious Freedom, Voids a Ban on Animal Sacrifices


The Supreme Court ruled today that a Florida city's ban on ritual animal sacrifice violated the religious freedom of the followers of an Afro-Cuban religion in which the sacrifice of animals plays a central role.

All nine Justices agreed that the prohibition, enacted in 1987 by the City of Hialeah, violated the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. "The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the Court. [ Excerpts, page 9. ]

But the Justices were divided in their approach to the case, continuing a three-year-old debate within the Court on how to analyze laws that make religious observances burdensome or impossible.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DE1431F931A25755C0A965958260

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heck. Why not? There is no limit stated concerning the right to bear arms. Likewise, there is no limit stated with respect to freedom of speech and religion. Just as you would conclude that people are free to buy as many guns and whatever types of guns that they want.

You -obviously- havent read my argument and it's conclusion.
Read this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=6581

Now that you are FINALLY paying attention, tell me how your statement, above, holds any water whatsoever.

 

[mattskramer]

duuuuuude. we've covered this.

THE SUPREME COURT: Animal Sacrifice; Court, Citing Religious Freedom, Voids a Ban on Animal Sacrifices


The Supreme Court ruled today that a Florida city's ban on ritual animal sacrifice violated the religious freedom of the followers of an Afro-Cuban religion in which the sacrifice of animals plays a central role.

All nine Justices agreed that the prohibition, enacted in 1987 by the City of Hialeah, violated the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. "The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the Court. [ Excerpts, page 9. ]

But the Justices were divided in their approach to the case, continuing a three-year-old debate within the Court on how to analyze laws that make religious observances burdensome or impossible.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DE1431F931A25755C0A965958260

I got your take on it. You are pretty consistent. I’m just trying to see if M14 would ever admit to his obvious double standard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I got your take on it. You are pretty consistent. I’m just trying to see if M14 would ever admit to his obvious double standard.

Its only a double standard to people that dont understand the position because the have been too busy listening to themlves talk to pay attention to what soeone is saying...

Like...um... you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, I'm not. YOU used the term 'personal militia'. That term, I think, means something to you that it doesnt mean to me. To ME it means that some warlord has put together a gourp of armed men to look after and/or achieve his personal interests.

Is that, more or less, what do you mean by the term 'personal militia'?
If not, then what?

It can mean that, it also means any Individual or Organization outside a duly constituted Governmental one that organizes an ARMED militia, trains them and controls them.

Joe Blow can not wake up one morning and say " Damn My city does not have a militia. so i will organize one and train it and then deploy it to solve problems" At least not an armed one and the police claim even unarmed groups they do not sponsor are illegal, they just are not willing to take said groups to court but rather arrest individual members and then use in court their group membership to imply a danger.

An armed militia is only legally allowed if regulated by some form of a legal Government OR authorized by one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It can mean that, it also means any Individual or Organization outside a duly constituted Governmental one that organizes an ARMED militia, trains them and controls them.

An armed militia is only legally allowed if regulated by some form of a legal Government OR authorized by one.

The problem here, of course, is that may very well be a time where this no state, or no state to speak of, or a state interested in opporessing its people, and the people of a cimmunity find it necessary to do exactly this. This sort of situation is perfectly within reasonable imagination, and is within the limit and scope of the reason behind the 2nd amendment -- that the people, without permission from the state, have the right to exerice their right to self-defense, individually and collectively.

After all, if the state supports tyranny, what point is there in securing the right to arms in order to form militia to resist said tyrannical state of that right is necessarily linked to permission from the state? This, of course, defeats the purpose of the 2nd in its entirety.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The problem here, of course, is that may very well be a time where this no state, or no state to speak of, or a state interested in opporessing its people, and the people of a cimmunity find it necessary to do exactly this. This sort of situation is perfectly within reasonable imagination, and is within the limit and scope of the reason behind the 2nd amendment -- that the people, without permission from the state, have the right to exerice their right to self-defense, individually and collectively.

After all, if the state supports tyranny, what point is there in securing the right to arms in order to form militia to resist said tyrannical state of that right is necessarily linked to permission from the state? This, of course, defeats the purpose of the 2nd in its entirety.

Now your trying to change the argument again. The only way the State can be Tyrannical is if the Federal Government allows it. In that case we are talking armed insurrection and not just inside a single State.

Any formation of an armed militia without state sponsorship or some lower governmental body then we are talking insurrection, armed rebellion. And believe me I will be right there resisting the Government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now your trying to change the argument again. The only way the State can be Tyrannical is if the Federal Government allows it. In that case we are talking armed insurrection and not just inside a single State.

All of this is assumed in the argument. States keep the fed Gvmnt in line. The fed gvmnt keeps the states in line. The militia -- that is, the armed citizenry -- keeps both in line.

The point is that the only way the militia can secure our liberties from the government is if the right to form said militia is not necessarily connected to permission from the state.

Any formation of an armed militia without state sponsorship or some lower governmental body then we are talking insurrection, armed rebellion.

Only if it takes action aganst the gvmnt. Merely forming and training a group of people under arms does no such thing.

And believe me I will be right there resisting the Government.

Me too

 

[M14 Shooter]

You -obviously- havent read my argument and it's conclusion.
Read this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=6581

Now that you are FINALLY paying attention, tell me how your statement, above, holds any water whatsoever.

MK:

Well? Did you read what I wrote?

 

[mattskramer]

MK:

Well? Did you read what I wrote?

Yes. I read what you wrote. You picked out some things written by our founding fathers and a court case to support your perspective of the 2nd amendment. It looks like your limitations to the Bill of Rights comes from your perspective on original intent. I guess that the original intent of our founding fathers, with respect to the first amendment, was not to include false statement.

It still does not negate the fact that there is no limit in the 2nd amendment with respect to the the right to bear arms. Also, there is not limit in the 1st amendment with respect to the free exercise of religion and speech. My point still stands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My point still stands.

No, it doesnt. You just arent willing to admit it.
The 1st has limitations, just like the 2nd.
Both are found in current jurisprudence.

Current jurisprudence dictates that any modern firearm is protected by the 2nd, as I have shown.

You dont have to like it, but you should be honest enough to admit it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. I read what you wrote. You picked out some things written by our founding fathers and a court case to support your perspective of the 2nd amendment.

Actually, you have that backwards.
In any event:
Care to show how I am wrong?