Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2010, 04:32 AM   #21
Resident JackHole
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Angry_bald_guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Perryville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,622
Liked 338 Times on 182 Posts
Likes Given: 53

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
I must have been mistaken, Saddam had WMD. We just haven't found them yet, and Hans Blix was just taking orders (presumably from the Bush administration) to go against the Administration. How silly of me to think that he would report from his first-hand experience in Iraq.

Yep, all the MSM are biased and against America. All of `em are in on one big conspiracy. I got it. And yet they do this without reporting lies (Fox excepted, they've been caught too many times), but only some of the bloggers know the truth.

The Second Am., from my studies, was a right reserved to the states. I used to argue the position that it was an individual right until I researched it. In law school.

While some of the F.F.'s wanted the right to be an individual right, not all were in agreement with this, and it is reflected in the language of the 2A. "A well regulated militia..." certainly seems to apply to the states, for if it were intended to be an individual right these words would be superfulous. A tenet of constitutional interpretation is that the Constitution does not have extra words, all have a meaning. The states (and people) were afraid of a standing army, and militias were intended as a bulwark against a Federal Army to protect the states from a tyrannical gov. Somehow this understanding was forgotten when the South seceeded. I don't have the time to give a full discourse on the topic, but that was the basic rationale for the 2nd in 1789.
Before Heller, there were only 4 S.C. cases, none of which held the right to be granted to an individual. I applaud Heller & McDonald, to be sure, but before these cases if an attorney were to base a client's defense solely on the 2A he would be liable for malpractice. Not now.

Please realize that before I began my research I was of the opinion that the
2nd was an individual right, so I wasn't approaching the subject with a liberal bias by any means. It did strike me as odd that for over 2oo years no one had ever won a case on 2A grounds. Nobody challenged a gun law until Heller? Yes, some did and all lost. Must have been another big conspiracy going back over 200 years, and SCOTUS was in on it.

I'm not completely sure what the 2nd means, and neither is anyone else except Justice Kennedy. Any future 2A cases that make it before SCOTUS will be decided by him unless the make up of the Court changes before he leaves.
Remember, for all intents and purposes, the Constitution means what 5 people in black dresses say it means. Been that way since 1801 (Marbury).
The militia is the people. Quoted from the United States Code Title 10:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Taken directly from the Cornell Law website.

Cliffnotes version: All male citizens of the United States between the ages of 17 and 45 (with a few exceptions) are members of the militia unless they are in the National Guard. This is also where the draft comes from. I am a member of the militia. I have never reported to a superior officer, I have never formally trained, and I have never received a uniform, but I am still a member of the militia. I have a right to own a gun, and I'll be damned if anyone dares to think they are stupid enough to try to take it.

BTW, how does it feel to be reasoned into a corner by a Mechanic who got a low two point GPA in highschool, Mr. Law Degree?
__________________
Darrel

No, you can't take my gun. I'm gonna need it when you try to take my truck...

Μολὼν λαβέ

I'm a mechanic. I fix things. This is why I will never be able to hold public office.

Last edited by Angry_bald_guy; 08-02-2010 at 04:36 AM.
Angry_bald_guy is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:45 AM   #22
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
I must have been mistaken, Saddam had WMD. We just haven't found them yet, and Hans Blix was just taking orders (presumably from the Bush administration) to go against the Administration. How silly of me to think that he would report from his first-hand experience in Iraq.
No, not Bush, but probably from the higher-ups in the U.N., which would make sense given the as-yet-undiscovered illegal activities surrounding the oil-for-food program.

Blix said he and his team had visually cataloged a significant stockpile of WMD in Iraq when they were kicked out in 1998. The purpose of the U.N. inspectors was to determine how and when that stockpile and any new WMD had been destroyed, or to oversee their destruction. They were NOT chartered to go looking for a needle in a haystack, which is what Blix wanted to continue doing.

Conspiracy? Nope. Just the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
Yep, all the MSM are biased and against America. All of `em are in on one big conspiracy. I got it. And yet they do this without reporting lies (Fox excepted, they've been caught too many times), but only some of the bloggers know the truth.
You're catching on. (Your sarcasm did not escape me, but what you wrote isn't too far off.) Certainly, not all reports lies or wrong all the time from any one source. But more often than not, on issues of importance, those who claim to be unbiased reporters show their bias and/or incompetence, whether they report one side of a story and omit a great deal of background, or they fail to do due diligence to verify a story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
The Second Am., from my studies, was a right reserved to the states. I used to argue the position that it was an individual right until I researched it. In law school.
Yeah, I figured you'd screw that up, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by belercous View Post
While some of the F.F.'s wanted the right to be an individual right, not all were in agreement with this, and it is reflected in the language of the 2A. "A well regulated militia..." certainly seems to apply to the states, for if it were intended to be an individual right these words would be superfulous. A tenet of constitutional interpretation is that the Constitution does not have extra words, all have a meaning. The states (and people) were afraid of a standing army, and militias were intended as a bulwark against a Federal Army to protect the states from a tyrannical gov. Somehow this understanding was forgotten when the South seceeded. I don't have the time to give a full discourse on the topic, but that was the basic rationale for the 2nd in 1789.
Before Heller, there were only 4 S.C. cases, none of which held the right to be granted to an individual. I applaud Heller & McDonald, to be sure, but before these cases if an attorney were to base a client's defense solely on the 2A he would be liable for malpractice. Not now.

Please realize that before I began my research I was of the opinion that the
2nd was an individual right, so I wasn't approaching the subject with a liberal bias by any means. It did strike me as odd that for over 2oo years no one had ever won a case on 2A grounds. Nobody challenged a gun law until Heller? Yes, some did and all lost. Must have been another big conspiracy going back over 200 years, and SCOTUS was in on it.

I'm not completely sure what the 2nd means, and neither is anyone else except Justice Kennedy. Any future 2A cases that make it before SCOTUS will be decided by him unless the make up of the Court changes before he leaves.
Remember, for all intents and purposes, the Constitution means what 5 people in black dresses say it means. Been that way since 1801 (Marbury).
No doubt, during your research, you must have encountered what the militia itself was and remains today: the people themselves. Not the National Guard (formed in 1903), the people. AGB cited the U.S. code above confirming that.

And no doubt you understand that "well regulated" refers to "working well together as a unit", not "thoroughly overseen and commanded".

Understanding the context in which it was written, it is inescapably clear that the military might of this country is supposed to rest with the people, not with the states or federal government. That military might was to be commanded by governors or presidents, certainly.

It seems clear to me you are a leftist shill. In light of that, I won't be wasting my time with you any further.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:40 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Thumbs up

Excellent post, thanks.

__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:29 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cory2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryville,Tennessee
Posts: 575
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Wow... I was reading lib's posts until i saw he said that he learned in "law school" that the second amendment was a states right... Even though in around 1798 there was a series of meetings and rulings to establish the meaning of the language used in the constitution, There was also a book written about it. Basicly it all culmanated in them stating that the preamble does not overrule the body of the ammendments and that the preamble shall only be used for interpretation when the body is confusing... Unfortnately for the liberals who try to bury this information it is still out there and always will be. Also unfortunately for the liberals the body "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in no way shape form or fashion confusing it is very straight forward. But this brings us to an even more interesting point. For what reason do the liberals claim to support all rights (operative word being "claim) EXCEPT the 2nd one... The one that many founding fathers said to be perhaps the most important one as it gives the government a reason to respect the rest... But nonetheless a liberal coming onto a pro gun rights sight and trying to troll just shows you the character of the average liberal, and then making the statements he/she has made just shows the average intelligence and reasoning skills of the average liberal. They always do the same thing, Claim they have proof and citings and such but can never present them. Some people will , as the liberal said, believe what they want too. There is nothing we can do and these people will gladly go to the camps saying the whole way "it will never happen to me"...

__________________
Cory2 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:47 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3479 Times on 1609 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Good Day Sir!

__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:58 PM   #26
Resident JackHole
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Angry_bald_guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Perryville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,622
Liked 338 Times on 182 Posts
Likes Given: 53

Default

Gotta love permabans.

Although I must say, JD, it would have been nice to keep his posts around as an example of the faulty reasoning that is leading this country further into deep ****.

__________________
Darrel

No, you can't take my gun. I'm gonna need it when you try to take my truck...

Μολὼν λαβέ

I'm a mechanic. I fix things. This is why I will never be able to hold public office.
Angry_bald_guy is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 11:27 PM   #27
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillinger View Post
Good Day Sir!
Hmmm. I thought he might be a pretty good specimen to keep around as a warning to others. No harm done. He won't be missed by me.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 11:36 PM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3479 Times on 1609 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Hmmm. I thought he might be a pretty good specimen to keep around as a warning to others. No harm done. He won't be missed by me.
90% of his posts were political, and most of them badgering you and the rest of the forum.

I googled his name and found a pattern, which was enough for me.
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow Last Crow Politics, Religion and Controversy 3 03-30-2010 06:21 PM
1st and 4th amendments do not apply Chester Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 03-09-2009 09:43 AM
Hating on the First AND Second Amendments Kelly J Legal and Activism 0 09-30-2008 04:18 PM