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

Skip to comments.

2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms
JS Online ^ | 7/1/06 | TOM MONCURE

Posted on 07/03/2006 6:45:30 PM PDT by kerryusama04

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last
To: Gilbo_3

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.


81 posted on 02/27/2008 12:52:01 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment is Non-Negotiable and NOT subject to Polling Data)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
No plaintiff, no money, no lawyer to present the argument.
82 posted on 02/27/2008 3:09:58 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: winston2
We are dealing with “people” who would presumably be befuddled by the meaning of “is”.
83 posted on 02/27/2008 3:18:20 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.


84 posted on 02/27/2008 3:19:10 PM PST by Nebr FAL owner (.308 reach out & thump someone .50 cal.Browning Machine gun reach out & crush someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BruceS
arm2 (ärm) n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. 2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms. 3. arms.a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders. b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms. 4. arms.a. Heraldry. Bearings. b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.

Dickwad

85 posted on 02/27/2008 3:34:59 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: winston2

Any idiot who would argue that the 2nd does not incorporate the fierce sentiment of these statements is an idiot.


86 posted on 02/27/2008 3:38:14 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kerryusama04; All
Thank you for your material about the 2nd Amendment.

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.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
Note that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the 14th A. was ratified. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues on the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
87 posted on 02/27/2008 3:44:04 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
"Then, United States vs. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use."

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.

88 posted on 02/27/2008 3:46:32 PM PST by Centurion2000 (su - | chown -740 us ./base | kill -9 | cd / | rm -r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
If we need those very types of arms to go after an out of control government, then we should have a right to obtain them by peaceful means. That was the main intent of the Founders.

Absolutely. It means that we should never have to fear an oppressive government again!

89 posted on 02/27/2008 3:52:16 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side. “


The nine answers I received in 2006 were sufficient.


90 posted on 02/27/2008 4:33:48 PM PST by ansel12 (post-apocalyptic drifter uttered three words, polygamous zombie vampires!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Because there WAS no opposing side! ONLY the government’s position was argued.


91 posted on 02/27/2008 5:52:54 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Can someone explain how that was not successfully argued by the pro 2nd side.

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

    The National Firearms Act [NFA] is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.

    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.

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:

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.

Source: Wikipedia
92 posted on 02/27/2008 6:14:11 PM PST by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gitmo

So what triggered all of this interest today in a year and a half old thread?


93 posted on 02/27/2008 6:45:35 PM PST by ansel12 (post-apocalyptic drifter uttered three words, polygamous zombie vampires!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
There is no choice between liberty or slavery; the concentration camp always looms in the background for those who compromise with evil.

would make a great tag... Thanks in advance...

94 posted on 02/28/2008 5:02:22 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Choose Liberty over slavery... the gulag awaits ANY compromise with evil...LiveFReeOr Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 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