Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Polite Society (gun owners)
The Omegaletter ^ | Oct. 19, 2005 | Jack Kinsella

Posted on 10/19/2005 12:59:27 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 10/19/2005 12:59:29 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.
2 posted on 10/19/2005 1:05:34 PM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

such a book wouldn't last a semester in a public school library in the Wild West these days.


3 posted on 10/19/2005 1:05:47 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (denial is the opiate of the masses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
"1950's-era science fiction writer Robert F. Heinlein observed, in one of his science fiction novels...."

Beyond This Horizon (1942), one of RAH's first novels.

4 posted on 10/19/2005 1:09:18 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Nice analysis and comments. I still remember reading that Heinlein book...


5 posted on 10/19/2005 1:10:12 PM PDT by Bhrian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
all citizens were armed and duels were commonplace;

if only......

Mr. Miller , I'm with ya !
6 posted on 10/19/2005 1:11:16 PM PDT by injin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.
It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

i though us v miller was over whether or not NFA '34 was constitutional, and defined what type of weapons were deemed appropriate for militia. and that the case itself only dealt with one specific weapon in the act and whether or not it had been used by the armed forces in combat. and still got it wrong.


7 posted on 10/19/2005 1:18:02 PM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: txgirl4Bush

9 posted on 10/19/2005 1:21:06 PM PDT by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Instead of dueling pistols, today we use lawyers! :-)

Here's a thought from Jeff Snyder that surely gives one pause to think:

TO BAN GUNS...
...because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding. (Jeff Snyder)


10 posted on 10/19/2005 1:21:44 PM PDT by DHC-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Trying to remember......
This is an old argument put to rest by another SCOTUS ruling somewhere in the early 1900's. It seems that nowhere is the congress authorized to send the militia overseas, and in fact are very limited in what they can even call them up for. It ruled (could have been an opinion of the court) that the Guard is routinely sent overseas and therefore could not be the militia. It defined the militia as able bodied males withing a certain age range.
------ anybody remember anything about this? ------

GE
11 posted on 10/19/2005 1:22:55 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Actually, I have met some obnoxious, loud-mouthed, louts at the gunrange. They seem to be self-acknowledged experts on everything.


12 posted on 10/19/2005 1:26:44 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush; Javelina
The Swiss have the most liberal gun laws in Europe. Every Swiss citizen is required to both own, and be proficient with, his own gun. That is the secret to the famous Swiss neutrality that has kept it free from invasion for centuries. Even Adolf Hitler respected Swiss neutrality. Switzerland, with its armed population of gun enthusiasts, would be too costly to take by force. I never knew that! That is the most awesome thing I've ever heard!

Swiss Gun Laws- and some rebuttal to HCI "spin"-- Thread II

13 posted on 10/19/2005 1:27:57 PM PDT by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk
Miller, when read without any bias, doesn't say much at all about the 2nd Amendment. At issue was the status of a sawed-off shotgun. Could it be outlawed by the National Firearms Act of 1934 or was it protected by the Constitution? Miller and his partner were either on the run or dead when the case reached the Supreme court, thus no one represented their side before the Court. Since no evidence was presented to show this weapon's utility to the Militia, the Court could not rule one way or the other on the question of the Militia's use of such a weapon. The Militia in question is clearly the whole population with their own arms; not the National Guard. And had evidence been presented to show the sawed-off shotgun was a suitable weapon for Militia use, the NFA's restrictions against such guns may have been struck down.

This article is interesting, but the author needs to go back to the drawing board and get his facts straight.

14 posted on 10/19/2005 1:29:44 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Javelina

Yep, had the Third Reich invaded Switzerland it would've been doubtful even one German occupier would've escaped the fate of being on the wrong end of a sniper's bullet.


15 posted on 10/19/2005 1:30:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: andyk
The Supreme Court decided in a landmark case styled "The United States v. Miller" that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to ordinary citizens, but instead conferred a special privilege on the National Guard.

--this is completely untrue.

Miller found that weapons used by the "militia" were protected and wrongly concluded that short-barrelled shotguns had not been used by said "militia" and therefore weren't protected---

16 posted on 10/19/2005 1:33:53 PM PDT by rellimpank (urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andyk
It's a great article, but I have a feeling many FReepers (myself included) will disagree with his characterization of Miller.

Not just that. The "Old West" picture he paints has a whole lot more to do with Hollywood than it does with Deadwood. ;)

In spite of the Western dime novels that spawned the misconception, the west was a relatively quiet place to live outside of the Indian Wars and a few specific characters.

17 posted on 10/19/2005 1:34:29 PM PDT by kAcknor (Don't flatter yourself.... It is a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
National Geographic Magazine highlighted the country of Switzerland in either the late 1970s or sometime in the 1980s. It talked about how all citizens are required to go through training and be armed and ready for war right from within their homes. There was at least one picture about it.

I misplaced that darn magazine and haven't been able to locate it since.

18 posted on 10/19/2005 1:43:40 PM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) 2005 WI PPA/CCW Ping List ~Contact me if you want on/off the ping list~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Actually, if I recall the Heinlein book correctly, everyone wore guns, but it was almost a ceremonial thing. Many had worn guns for most of their long lives but never had occasion to use them.

The point was, they were there, and, as one dude remarked to me about my 100 pound black dog, "That dawg would make you think twice." The guns made people think twice.

It was Heinlein's point that being armed made for a more peaceful society.


19 posted on 10/19/2005 2:13:17 PM PDT by altura (T.G.I.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

Personally, I am on my best behavior at the gun range.


20 posted on 10/19/2005 2:13:57 PM PDT by altura (T.G.I.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson