Why do you say "she"? Is it because you can only argue from emotion, ignorance or dishonesty?
Or is it all three?
Idiot Judge rules AR 15s are dangerous and unusual arms.
- Thread starter OriginalShroom
- Start date
Why do you say "she"? Is it because you can only argue from emotion, ignorance or dishonesty?
Or is it all three?
Spoonman
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2010
- 18,163
- 7,663
- 330
Captain Obvious volunteers (and thanks for the source links (/sarc)):
(emphases added)
-- 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"
-- no reference to firearms here. (1)
--- 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]"
-- Again, no reference to firearms here. (2)
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.
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."
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.
-- another excerpt from two quotes above, and no reference to firearms here. (3)
So?
-- 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)
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.
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.
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.
-- continuation of the same pamphlet above. Again this is where actual research can keep you from embarrassing yourself.
--- yer gonna have to break a brain sweat, do some actualy fuckin' homework and give us a source here. I don't see it.
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.
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."
This is the whole basis of the Liberalism that created this country. But again -- nothing here about firearms. (5)
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.
-- 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".
Again, the context is 1788 -- see the whole shebang above about standing armies vs. "militia".
-- he's referring to British game-preservation laws, which restricted firearms to the wealthy, thus he's railing against classism. And that's good.
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.
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.
See above.
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.
Well this isnt abreviated or doctored or paraphrased in any way
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.
for something that shall not be infringed a whole lot of infringment is going on.
And lets not forget, the bill of rights are the rights of the people. NOT the Government
Did you clean it periodically?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Actually you would be totally wrong. The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that the 2nd applied to "military" type weapons. Weapons in use, of use and in current use in the civilian population. The AR-15 and AK-47 are IN FACT the very weapons the 2nd protects.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Yeah. What's your point, g5000?
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.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
But....that's never been a bar to you posting before....
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Actually, I'm familiar with the fuller context of most of the quotes listed by Shroom. What Pogo seems to be suggesting regarding those that unambiguously pertain to firearms is wrong, that it, if he's imagining that any of the statements, including that of Adams, in any way contradicts the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment: namely, the right of the people to check usurpative government.
But then it's not altogether clear what Pogo means to suggest at times. Perhaps he'll clarify the matter for us.
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
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.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
But....that's never been a bar to you posting before....
Lefty likes to pretend that the pre-constitutional imperatives of natural law have no bearing on the matter. He just makes it up as he goes along.
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
That 1939 SCOTUS decision you referenced would have to be the often abused and improperly interpreted, U.S. v Miller (1939). NOWHERE in that decision was that idea stated, implied or inferred! Besides, the National Firearms Act (1934), which was sustained as constitutional by the Court allowing restrictions on types of firearms, such as machine guns, was foundational for the determination of other potential firearms limitations, regardless of the incorrect NRA tribal knowledge.
In the SCOTUS decision of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), Justice Scalia wrote in citing the Miller decision, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons." That statement from conservative Justice Scalia places the death sentence of error on your assertion.
Don't bother telling me I'm wrong, tell it to Scalia!
...
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Indeed.
And, according to Miller, what weapons are those?
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
If a person takes the effort, one could read that the Miller decision revolved around the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The case did not involve pointing to classifications of weapons, just the constitutionality of the NFA.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
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.
Shall not be infringed. Its not that difficult but it sure is for you. Lol.
Nice dodge. OK, it was an obvious dodge. Because hte answer is given in Heller: Weapons commonly used. No rifle is more commonly used in America than the AR15. It is "America's Rifle."
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
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.
Bubba and a keger aren't a 'well-regulated militia.'
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.
Bubba and a keger aren't a 'well-regulated militia.'
And you aren't a one percenter. Except when it comes to brain usage.
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
OnePercenter
Gold Member
- Apr 10, 2013
- 23,667
- 1,884
- 265
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.
Bubba and a keger aren't a 'well-regulated militia.'
And you aren't a one percenter. Except when it comes to brain usage.
Bubba's tend to be the Anti-Semite's. But then you're only a Jew for the jokes.....right?
ThoughtCrimes
Old Navy Vet
M14 asked about Miller. I responded to that question accurately...no dodge. You are in gadfly mode, huh?
No, you did not answer the question accurate. Yes, you did dodge it. Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A. In Miller's case they ruiled the short barrel shotgun was not such a weapon. Which implies that there are a class of weapons that are protected, as being serviceable for the militia.
Those would certainly include the AR15, America's Rifle.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
sound, water bubbles, and flash of light- Started by trevorjohnson83
- Replies: 1
-
Is the Strait of Hurmuz a sliver lining for Climate Change?- Started by Raynine
- Replies: 2
-
-
