Skip to comments.2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms
Posted on 07/03/2006 6:45:30 PM PDT by kerryusama04
click here to read article
I will not go quietly either, my friend.
As for Number Three: It’s because the Libs can’t do what they want to do to us as long as WE can stop them. The threat of the use of coercive force is negated when it can be equally counterbalanced by defensive force.
“...Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess,
are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us...”
“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”
-Patrick Henry, St John’s, March 23, 1775
We’re AMERICANS. This is not England or Canada or Australia, or Eurosocialistopia.
We either stand up like American men, or we roll over like worn-out old French wh*re and then take what we deserve.
About sums it up. There is no choice between liberty or slavery; the concentration camp always looms in the background for those who compromise with evil.
Recent history proves it. The libs will ally themselves with the Muslims, with communists/socialists, with ANYONE willing to do harm to this country, it’s heritage, and our people.
Simple Miller had died in prison ,his lawyers no longer had a client didn’t bother to show up before the court to argue their side if the case.
Any idiot who would argue that the 2nd does not incorporate the fierce sentiment of these statements is an idiot.
However, please beware of any discussion about the 2nd A. that doesn't mention its relationship to the 14th Amendment.
More specifically, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page in the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.
Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side.
The prosecution lied saying that shotguns were not a militia arm. None of the Justices had served in the military (or they would have known how handy the shotgun was during WWI), and the defense was not present as the lawyer for the defense never bothered to file a brief for the Supreme Court hearing.
Absolutely. It means that we should never have to fear an oppressive government again!
“Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side. “
The nine answers I received in 2006 were sufficient.
Because there WAS no opposing side! ONLY the government’s position was argued.
On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:Source: Wikipedia
The National Firearms Act [NFA] is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
So what triggered all of this interest today in a year and a half old thread?
would make a great tag... Thanks in advance...
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.