I AM A REFUSENIK.
Posted on 12/08/2015 5:27:07 AM PST by rellimpank
Anyone will be able to print one of those soon. With every right comes responsibility. You should not let your 11 year old print whatever he wants.
Don’t count your guns before they’re confiscated, chumps.
And I doubt I’m the only one who understands that individual rights aren’t dependent on Supreme Court rulings and would happily tell you where to go and how to get there.
The devil is in the details. Who decides what level of training, who decides what level of practice, who decides what level of maintenance? The government?
Would that in itself not be infringement?
Sorry, if I want a machine gun to sit on my shelf and never take a shot, that is my business. No training, no maintenance,
Oh, any you statement about handing a machine gun to anyone without training being unconstitutional, is stupid beyond belief.
Seems to me lower courts are trampling all over the milquetoast Heller decision and SCTOUS is letting them. One theory is one or more of the “Heller 5” has changed their mind, which would pretty much prove these guys issue rulings based on emotion and their personal opinions. Those of us in anti-gun states are seemingly hosed.
Slow down. Don’t give them an opening, brah.
I sat down with an English Dictionary from ca. 1814 (George IIIs son was regent, but George had not died yet).
I found definitions interesting in that "Militia" was considered "The Army, in its entirety".
"Regulated" meant "controlled".
It took a little doing to figure out things from there, namely reading the Federalist Papers on a standing Federal army, whether there should be one, how big it should be, etc.
After all, these were men who had just gained a hard won freedom from what amounted to a series of Military Governorships in their respective colonies, which they now regarded as separate nations, united for the purposed of commerce and mutual defense.
They were highly suspicious of central authority, much less a Federal Army to impose it.
Then the pieces fell together. A well controlled (Federal, or even State army), being necessary to the security (from without, and within) of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Every State had its own Militia (army) to resist not only the possible ambitions of its neighbors, but to resist any attempt at Federal Tyranny.
Every person needed to be armed, even in the States which were not on the frontier, for the purpose of maintaining security from other States and from Federal incursions and usurpations, with the rights of the individual State to be jealously guarded (why the State Legislatures elected the US Senate, and not the people, at least until the 17th Amendment). And every person possible or desirous needed to be armed to defend the same States, United against a common foe. Even without martial training, the overwhelming number of people thus armed could carry the day.
The real purpose, to maintain the security of a Free State is the Militia aspect, but even more, the right is specifically reserved to the People and not the State, to be there should the need arise to fight tyranny whether from within their State, from the Federal Government or another State, or to engage in the mutual defense of the United States.
That that also provided a means of defense against brigands, marauders, raids from hostile parties, pirates at sea, and the means to feed one's family were a bonus, but far from the primary purpose of the Amendment.
This gets clearer the more you read, and in the day, whatever weapons could be afforded by private individuals could be had, without reserve, so long as they were not used against any of the United States.
Most individuals could not afford artillery and the like, except the very rich, who might need naval guns to protect their merchant shipping. Otherwise those guns would belong to the (State) militia unit which raised the money for them and the powder and shot to use them, or be part of the Federal Arsenal. Still, they were not prohibited to the people, nor was any weapon of war.
Isn’t this what the anti-2nd Amendment crowd uses as the basis and foundation for their “arguments”?
No, common sense. The responsbility is on the owners. It is our responsbility, for example, to not sell to someone we suspect might be a jihadi. There are people who say that they have the right to sell to anyone one they want. Technically that is true, but does not make sense.
Sorry, if I want a machine gun to sit on my shelf and never take a shot, that is my business. No training, no maintenance,
Well your example is very poor. If you take that machine gun off the shelf and go down to the range or your back yard and the recoil makes you spray wildly in all directions, then you have irresponsibly exercised your right to be stupid. What that does is paints the rest of us badly and gives free ammo to the gun grabbers.
The left will make any argument they want, truthful or not. It does not matter in the least. What matters is taking the responsbibility seriously. If we do not, then the rest of the population (not just the left) will turn against us.
The other argument is simple, without practice and maintenance the weapon will be useless.
Nope. See my previous post.
Regardless of what you may think constitutes stupidity, the Second Amendment absolutely prohibits ANY law infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause shows that the authors intended especially to protect the right to keep and bear MILITARY arms.
You have the matter exactly backwards. Somebody upthread linked to the Miller Supreme Court decision.
Read it.
He’s brilliantly illuminating the idiocy, the complete mental, moral, and legal bankruptcy of leftist anti-gun arguments.
Perhaps he’s playing “devil’s advocate”.
Hey I’ve got a copy of that on my shelf! I ordered it back then!
You believe that anyone has the right to keep and bear military arms (you capitalize it as though I don't understand the concept). Good news: I agree completely.
That person must also be trained to use the weapon (common sense) which is why I do that myself, join the NRA, etc. If someone came to me and asked to buy a military arm that I owned, I would ask if they are trained. If not, the answer is no. If I owned a store selling military arms, the answer would be the same. There would be gray areas (they have responsibly handled other weapons, they are going to get training, etc).
Rights are never black and white.
Must? MUST????
Who the flying fsck are you to say what someone must have or do before being "allowed" to exercise his constitutionally protected, God-given human rights?????
Get this through your thick skull: The government is absolutely FORBIDDEN to decree what someone must have or do before exercising his right to keep and bear arms. You? You're just a blabbermouth talking like Chuck Schumer.
Yeah, I'm all in favor of Americans getting as much training and practice with their arms as we want and can afford. But making it a requirement is beyond the pale.
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.