Idiot Judge rules AR 15s are “dangerous and unusual arms”.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then why are the military police using AR15s against the Ferguson citizens?

As usual, you're making no sense.

The law in question is from Maryland, not Missouri.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Incorrect.

The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.

From your cited article:

“The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,’ ” she wrote.

A 'significant burden' would manifest should a jurisdiction seek to prohibit possession of all handguns, or firearms overall. Laws allowing the possession of handguns, rifles, shotguns, but not AR or AK platforms are Constitutional because they do not violate the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Consequently it is the OP who is ignorant of the law, not the judge who is 'ignorant' of firearms.

And that Clinton appointed the judge who ruled in this case is irrelevant, as the judge who ruled that the New York SAFE Act banning AR platform rifles was Constitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

Thus the OP's effort to contrive this into some sort of 'partisan issue' fails.

I acknowledge and accept the fact that this is indeed current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although I disagree with it. This and similar rulings are likely subject to appeal, and may eventually come before the Supreme Court, at which time a determination will be made that the Second Amendment right is more comprehensive, placing a greater burden upon the state to justify the banning of specific firearms, invalidating New York's SAFE Act and like measures such as the one in Maryland.

Stow it, Jones. We don't give a flip about lefty's subversive judicial prattle.

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 ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment goes to the divinely endowed, inalienable right of the people to defend themselves against foreign and domestic enemies of the social contract who would violate their lives, their liberty or their property. An armed citizenry is the ultimate check against usurpative government. The right of the people to defend these things against criminality axiomatically follows. Semiautomatic long rifles are not "dangerous and unusual arms"; they’re constitutional, militia-grade weapons. The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment goes to the right of the people to keep and bear the effective means to kill people. Got it? That's the whole point.

The judge is an idiot.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

You clearly do not understand the 2nd Amendment.

I think he's the nutshell.




i have to laugh at all these liberal interpretations that have absolutely no historical reference to the 2nd amendment whatsoever

Precisely! Lefty thinks he can disregard the historical and philosophical context of the Republic's founding and the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment, which, in the starkest terms, goes to the inalienable right of the people to violently overthrow usurpative government!

In the meantime, he prattles his subversive judicial tripe intended to obscure the actualities of that very inalienable right, the first shot fired by tyrants, an existential threat, as if we wouldn't notice.

LOL!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

A so called assault rifle is nothing but a semi automatic.

This rifle

A Mini 14 ranch rifle

Is no different functionally from this AR 15

The only difference and I repeat the ONLY difference is cosmetic

Yet you people say one is far more dangerous than the other.

Please explain that if you can

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

All of this? A lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Incorrect.

The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.

Interesting.
Please cite the text of the SCotUS rulings to this effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Brilliant judge!!

Says she who has not a single clue regarding the subject, arguing, and happily so, only from emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sallow

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh.... by no objective standard are 'assault weapons' demonstrably dangerous and unusual.

 

[Missourian]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Incorrect.

The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.

From your cited article:

“The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,’ ” she wrote.

A 'significant burden' would manifest should a jurisdiction seek to prohibit possession of all handguns, or firearms overall. Laws allowing the possession of handguns, rifles, shotguns, but not AR or AK platforms are Constitutional because they do not violate the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Consequently it is the OP who is ignorant of the law, not the judge who is 'ignorant' of firearms.

And that Clinton appointed the judge who ruled in this case is irrelevant, as the judge who ruled that the New York SAFE Act banning AR platform rifles was Constitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

Thus the OP's effort to contrive this into some sort of 'partisan issue' fails.

I acknowledge and accept the fact that this is indeed current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although I disagree with it. This and similar rulings are likely subject to appeal, and may eventually come before the Supreme Court, at which time a determination will be made that the Second Amendment right is more comprehensive, placing a greater burden upon the state to justify the banning of specific firearms, invalidating New York's SAFE Act and like measures such as the one in Maryland.

I disagree Clayton.

An AR-15 is functionally no different than any other auto-loading firearm.

That means the only reason to rule that it is "dangerous and unusual" is it's appearance...and that's just plain stupid, especially coming from a judge who we assume is educated and impartial.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

Fuck you. If a police officer can carry a weapon, any other citizen should be able to carry the exact same weapon. Disarm one, you have to disarm the other.

 

[martybegan]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Incorrect.

The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.

From your cited article:

“The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,’ ” she wrote.

A 'significant burden' would manifest should a jurisdiction seek to prohibit possession of all handguns, or firearms overall. Laws allowing the possession of handguns, rifles, shotguns, but not AR or AK platforms are Constitutional because they do not violate the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Consequently it is the OP who is ignorant of the law, not the judge who is 'ignorant' of firearms.

And that Clinton appointed the judge who ruled in this case is irrelevant, as the judge who ruled that the New York SAFE Act banning AR platform rifles was Constitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

Thus the OP's effort to contrive this into some sort of 'partisan issue' fails.

I acknowledge and accept the fact that this is indeed current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although I disagree with it. This and similar rulings are likely subject to appeal, and may eventually come before the Supreme Court, at which time a determination will be made that the Second Amendment right is more comprehensive, placing a greater burden upon the state to justify the banning of specific firearms, invalidating New York's SAFE Act and like measures such as the one in Maryland.

and until then people's rights are fucked. They should be compensated by the state if and when the SC clarifies the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Bad laws have to result in consequences for the governments that pass them.

 

[The Rabbi]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Incorrect.

The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.

.

That is not correct.
Miller upheld the right for weapons in common use. Heller affirmed that weapons in common use were protected under the 2A. The AR15 is probably the most common center fire rifle in America.
The judge clearly doesnt know shit from shinola and the ruling should be reversed on appeal.

 

[Missourian]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

I can see why this was in a nutshell...it's nuts.

 

[chikenwing]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

Your opinion and only our opinion, based on your opinion.

You miss just about all of its intent,my guess its on purpose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

Your opinion and only our opinion, based on your opinion.

You miss just about all of its intent,my guess its on purpose.

Ask her to prove that "case law has corrupted original intent."
Watch her as she does anything and everything but, because she knows she cannot.

 

[g5000]

May 3, 1994
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

.

As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.[...]

Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.

”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.

Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his vote.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban#4ke5rd6

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban#4ke5rd6

So... what's your point?

 

[Pogo]

Captain Obvious volunteers (and thanks for the source links (/sarc)):

(emphases added)

Sallow,

Given your post, please explain the following..

Pennsylvania 1790 that state adopted a Constitution that declared:
“That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defense of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.”

Vermont 1777 that state approved a Declaration of Rights which stated:
“…that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.”

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

-- actually this is truncated (and rewritten), the fuller quote being:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite"​

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

-- no reference to firearms here. (1)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

--- also rewritten, the full text, and it's a proposal draft (that wasn't adopted) for a state constitution, runs thusly:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"​

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

-- Again, no reference to firearms here. (2)

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

Why don't you just say it's a Cesare Beccaria quote from 1764?

In any case this is a cultural observation -- of the mid-18th century. That has significance.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was a hunter, and in this letter to a nephew was talking about exercise, and the physical activities a hunting gun -- in that wild frontier time -- could lead to on a walk. Indeed the letter goes on, after the point quoted:

"Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk. But divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far."​

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

Internets cannot find any version of this containing the phrase "(and of the United States)", which just demonstrates why source links are a good idea.

The phrase "their ... duty to be at all times armed" is another interesting reflection of the culture of the time (this is a personal letter, 1824). Just imagine if in the world of 2014, literally everybody walked around armed... But the point remains, no link, no source, no point.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

-- another excerpt from two quotes above, and no reference to firearms here. (3)
So?

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

-- an analysis of the efficiency of the revolutionaries. Indeed part of the ellipsis above cut out the letter's self-description:

"This is the best history of the war which can be brought within the compass of a letter."​

Again -- he's describing how the war is going, after which paragraphs he goes on to wax eloquent on the topics of harpsichords and French horns. Again -- so what? Nothing about the relationship of firearms to governments or legal systems. (4)

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

Bogus quote altogether, which once sat on the NRA web site and was taken down.

The actual real quote makes the opposite point:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)​

--- once again..... sources.

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

Another bogus quote. The actual passage speaks in the third person about what somebody else said, to wit:

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom?

Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havock, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)​

-- again, expressing some of the same concern as the Adams quote above in the general direction of firearm responsibility, and more directly, standing armies.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

Again, in actual context, this is from a pamphlet written in 1787 (interestingly when Webster was 18 years old) urging Pennsylvania to ratify the new governmental framework proposed by the Constitutional Convention, the point being taking the position against a standing army -- as in Mason above.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

-- continuation of the same pamphlet above. Again this is where actual research can keep you from embarrassing yourself.

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

--- yer gonna have to break a brain sweat, do some actualy fuckin' homework and give us a source here. I don't see it.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

Another from the same ratification push of 1787 (see Webster above) -- and another misquote. Once again the focus is on the power a standing army would have, versus the citizenry ---- of 1787.

Actual passage:

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.​

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

This was a resolution in the Constitutional debate that eventually produced the Bill of Rights, which we're all familiar with. A resolution is a starting point from which debate ensues, and did.

Interestingly several of the drafts in this debate read:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms."​

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

This is the whole basis of the Liberalism that created this country. But again -- nothing here about firearms. (5) What's the point?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

Once again a morphed quote; the actual is in past tense:

"Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants; it was the creed of slaves."​

--- and is actually part of a debate about a "too big to fail" proposal regarding the East India Company. Nothing directly or indirectly to do with firearms in any way whatsoever (6).

Furthermore Pitt was a Brit, and as such not part of this country's founding or Constitution anyway. Nice try.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

-- who went on to say, in the interest of complete context:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

"The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. ...All regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."​

-- which of course conjures up the whole phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary..." which is the target of the dependent clause that follows in the Second Amendment, and the examination of the competing definitions of "militia" and "the people".

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

Again, the context is 1788 -- see the whole shebang above about standing armies vs. "militia".

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

-- he's referring to British game-preservation laws, which restricted firearms to the wealthy, thus he's railing against classism. And that's good.

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

Once again the missing link is context:

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...."
​

-- looks to me like he's talking about firearm escalation. Which is a worthy thought.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

--- once again, taken out of context and put in the mouth of Adams as if in the first person, when it's actually the third person:

"A motion was made and seconded, that the report of the Committee made on Monday last, be amended, so far as to add the following to the first article therein mentioned, viz.: And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms, or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them, or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances, or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.

And the question being put, was determined in the negative."​

--- Sam Adams reporting his notes of the meeting.... not making a statement himself. Kinda dishonest to keep going down this dishonest well, doncha think?

"; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

Once again, I like a quote that begins with a semicolon. Dead giveaway that something's being hidden, and makes me want to know what it is. Actual full text:

The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.​

--- again, concern about both the power a standing army would have, and the hazards of unregulated gun nuttery. And another worthy thought.

And by the way when you cut the quote at the semicolon you cut out the whole subject of the sentence that got chopped in the middle. As posted it doesn't even make any sense grammatically, let alone rhetorically. What you posted is a subordinate clause, orphaned from its mother. Not even a sentence.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

See above.

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton

Again ............. nothing there about firearms. (7)


PS next time do yer fuckin' homework instead of lazy-ass cut and pastes from wacko gun nut sites that didn't do theirs either. You're welcome.

 

[Spoonman]

May 3, 1994
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

]

The rights of citizens to bear arms Shall Not be Infringed

Sincerely,

James Madison
Author of the 2nd Amendment and founder of this nation