Our founding fathers were not conservative

[The T]

But the sad thing about the ruling of US v Heller it was 5-4 just one more justice going the opposite way.... 5-4 ? It should have been 9-0

The fact that so many key rulings are split like that, is testament to the fact that the Court, not being accountable to anything more than itself, leaving us no recourse for petition beyond it, is a mis-characterization of it's role.

What will happen with the next appointment? that ruling even though the ruling was in favor of right for all citizens to keep firearms, how long do you think they will have to rule again on this issue, and how do you think it will be ruled on? That wasn't a victory in my opinion.

They have already ruled. And besides? The Second and it's intent are quite clear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias.

Please -show- this to be the case, rather than offer your usual unsupportable opinion.

Still waiting for you to cite the Article Section and Clause of the US Constitutionn that prohibits secession, pursuant to your claim of such.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"
Nothing.

Except Amendment II.

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

Right - irregulars armed with small-arms could never hope to defeat the US military.
Except in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.


Still waiting for you to cite the Article Section and Clause of the US Constitutionn that prohibits secession, pursuant to your claim of such.

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias. It's been wildly misinterpreted.

And I've posted the clauses numerous times in this very thread. Being obtuse doesn't win arguments.

How about the free state part? They where in fact talking about defending your state. Now who would a state be defending itself against?

 

[The T]

Even the Court can be overruled by the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even the Court can be overruled by the people.

In many ways.
First and foremost, it can be rendered virtually impotent by Congress.

 

[The T]

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"
Nothing.

Except Amendment II.

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

Right - irregulars armed with small-arms could never hope to defeat the US military.
Except in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.


Still waiting for you to cite the Article Section and Clause of the US Constitutionn that prohibits secession, pursuant to your claim of such.

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias. It's been wildly misinterpreted.

And I've posted the clauses numerous times in this very thread. Being obtuse doesn't win arguments.

Wrong. It is clear that the people have the right to defend themselves from invaders...even if the invaders are their own government.

 

[Sallow]

Except Amendment II.


Right - irregulars armed with small-arms could never hope to defeat the US military.
Except in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.


Still waiting for you to cite the Article Section and Clause of the US Constitutionn that prohibits secession, pursuant to your claim of such.

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias. It's been wildly misinterpreted.

And I've posted the clauses numerous times in this very thread. Being obtuse doesn't win arguments.

How about the free state part? They where in fact talking about defending your state. Now who would a state be defending itself against?

Ultimately..the Congress have power over the Militia. It's part of it's enumerated powers.

 

[Sallow]

Except Amendment II.


Right - irregulars armed with small-arms could never hope to defeat the US military.
Except in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.


Still waiting for you to cite the Article Section and Clause of the US Constitutionn that prohibits secession, pursuant to your claim of such.

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias. It's been wildly misinterpreted.

And I've posted the clauses numerous times in this very thread. Being obtuse doesn't win arguments.

Wrong. It is clear that the people have the right to defend themselves from invaders...even if the invaders are their own government.

Ridiculous.

 

[The T]

Even the Court can be overruled by the people.

In many ways.
First and foremost, it can be rendered virtually impotent by Congress.

RARE if ever at all. That is the point. And why there is an amendment process by representation at the behest of the people that are represented.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fact that so many key rulings are split like that, is testament to the fact that the Court, not being accountable to anything more than itself, leaving us no recourse for petition beyond it, is a mis-characterization of it's role.

What will happen with the next appointment? that ruling even though the ruling was in favor of right for all citizens to keep firearms, how long do you think they will have to rule again on this issue, and how do you think it will be ruled on? That wasn't a victory in my opinion.

They have already ruled. And besides? The Second and it's intent are quite clear.

You have more faith in the judical system than me brother. I think some big issue will come up again concerning the second amendment not like the heller issue but something dealing with the second. And it is my opinion that the ruling will turn out differently

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even the Court can be overruled by the people.

In many ways.
First and foremost, it can be rendered virtually impotent by Congress.

RARE if ever at all. That is the point. And why there is an amendment process by representation at the behest of the people that are represented.

I'm not saying it does happen, just that it can.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias. It's been wildly misinterpreted.

And I've posted the clauses numerous times in this very thread. Being obtuse doesn't win arguments.

How about the free state part? They where in fact talking about defending your state. Now who would a state be defending itself against?

Ultimately..the Congress have power over the Militia. It's part of it's enumerated powers.

So if congress has power over the militia who protects the people from a tyranical government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So if congress has power over the militia who protects the people from a tyranical government?

Congress has certain powers over the militia.
The ultimate power over the militia is held by the men who decide to obey the orders of their officers, and the officers who decide to obey the orders of their supreriors.

 

[The T]

The second amendment refers to a collective right to form militias. It's been wildly misinterpreted.

And I've posted the clauses numerous times in this very thread. Being obtuse doesn't win arguments.

Wrong. It is clear that the people have the right to defend themselves from invaders...even if the invaders are their own government.

Ridiculous.

Really?


Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
​

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

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. Whenever 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. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
​

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
_________________________



The Federalist Papers
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

​

SOURCE

 

[The T]

In many ways.
First and foremost, it can be rendered virtually impotent by Congress.

RARE if ever at all. That is the point. And why there is an amendment process by representation at the behest of the people that are represented.

I'm not saying it does happen, just that it can.

Agreed. And there's nothing stopping it but the will to do so.

 

[Sallow]

How about the free state part? They where in fact talking about defending your state. Now who would a state be defending itself against?

Ultimately..the Congress have power over the Militia. It's part of it's enumerated powers.

So if congress has power over the militia who protects the people from a tyranical government?

Aside from separation of powers, the negative liberties of the Constitution with regards to government over people and civilian control of the military?

I haven't a clue...

 

[The T]

How about the free state part? They where in fact talking about defending your state. Now who would a state be defending itself against?

Ultimately..the Congress have power over the Militia. It's part of it's enumerated powers.

So if congress has power over the militia who protects the people from a tyranical government?

The people themselves in their right to be secure in thier liberty, life and property

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really...?

Sallow has never heard of Blackstone or Tucker - and has only a passing familiarity with the Constitution itself.

 

[The T]

Really...?

Sallow has never heard of Blackstone or Tucker - and has only a passing familiarity with the Constitution itself.

In name only unfortunately.

 

[The T]

Ultimately..the Congress have power over the Militia. It's part of it's enumerated powers.

So if congress has power over the militia who protects the people from a tyranical government?

Aside from separation of powers, the negative liberties of the Constitution with regards to government over people and civilian control of the military?

I haven't a clue...

'Negative liberties' Gracie? A Statist term I submit that empowers government.