[rockapede]

Originally Posted by alwaysshootin

You are arguing with people who think any "man", "court", "king", "dictator", can make a rule/law, that they can't defend themselves, with any means possible!

Where did you get that from anything I wrote? I DARE you to show me.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by Atlas

It's very clear from all writings of the time that "militia" was all able-bodied civilian males.

It's "very clear from all writings" (though I doubt this) except the one that actually matters.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by Atlas

"shall not be infringed".

in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
Verb: Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So in your personal interpretation of the constitution laws against malicious slanderous speech by either individuals or the press are unconstitutional.

In your wonderful world individuals and or the press can make knowingly false malicious statements about you and ruin your career, business, reputation because they are just engaging in their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. or do you think such laws are valid afterall?

Thankfully that is not how it is in the real world. It's only that way in the minds of those who think THEY are the authority in the interpretation of the Constitution.

[alwaysshootin]

Originally Posted by rockapede

Where did you get that from anything I wrote? I DARE you to show me.

"First, you apparently have an unconstitutional view of the Supreme Court."

Can a justice be removed?

"Second, your constant narrative about "natural" rights sounds nice, but is meaningless."

Only if you are Godless!

[MacChiroCtr]

In the 18th Century, the Militia was, simply, the people. Basically, males from 16 to 60 were ALL in the militia. So when they composed the 2nd Amendment, since the the militia was basically everyone, they meant the people.

It's kind of fun to go and study the language from back then. Kind of like "well-regulated"... having the meaning it did then, compared to how we interpret it today.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by alwaysshootin

"First, you apparently have an unconstitutional view of the Supreme Court."

Can a justice be removed?

"Second, your constant narrative about "natural" rights sounds nice, but is meaningless."

Only if you are Godless!

To your first, yes. Your point?

To your second, again, your point? Several million dead people (many of whom were very, very religious) in WW2 alone had natural rights as well. In a practical sense, it was meaningless.

I still can't figure out how your post gives any evidence to this:

Originally Posted by alwaysshootin

You are arguing with people who think any "man", "court", "king", "dictator", can make a rule/law, that they can't defend themselves, with any means possible!

The invitation for you to provide a shred of evidence that I believe defense against tyrants is wrong is still open.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by MacChiroCtr

In the 18th Century, the Militia was, simply, the people. Basically, males from 16 to 60 were ALL in the militia. So when they composed the 2nd Amendment, since the the militia was basically everyone, they meant the people.

It's kind of fun to go and study the language from back then. Kind of like "well-regulated"... having the meaning it did then, compared to how we interpret it today.

So, if we're looking for the "true" interpretation of the Constitution, does that mean women or elderly men have no right to keep and bear arms? Please understand, at least where you're concerned, I'm not trying to be confrontational. However, issues of language and the 18th century meanings of words are one very good justification for the USSC.

[alwaysshootin]

Originally Posted by rockapede

To your first, yes. Your point?

To your second, again, your point? Several million dead people (many of whom were very, very religious) in WW2 alone had natural rights as well. In a practical sense, it was meaningless.

I still can't figure out how your post gives any evidence to this:



The invitation for you to provide a shred of evidence that I believe defense against tyrants is wrong is still open.

Nacke? Winston?

If an American president/king/dictator, makes a presidential order/law, that no American can posses a firearm, of any kind, and, the supreme court says it's constitutional, is it?

I say no! That is my point. Any interpretation, of the Constitution, other than what it says, is the true radical. It is an easy read, and straight forward.

As far as the very religious, in WW2, the only reason it was meaningless, as you say, is because they were disarmed. I think it speaks volumes!

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

So in your personal interpretation of the constitution laws against malicious slanderous speech by either individuals or the press are unconstitutional.

In your wonderful world individuals and or the press can make knowingly false malicious statements about you and ruin your career, business, reputation because they are just engaging in their constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. or do you think such laws are valid afterall?

Thankfully that is not how it is in the real world. It's only that way in the minds of those who think THEY are the authority in the interpretation of the Constitution.

You mean, can you use speech to harm another without consequence?

Not surprised to see you come down on the side of the heavy handed state but that's just weak.

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

When you are hunting, you are already carrying a weapon.

Been hunting much?

No, I'm not a big hunter, but even I know that hunting firearms are generally not loaded until in position to hunt, such in the duck blind or deer stand.

Now hunting other types of game such as quail, pheasant or rabbit - ie. mobile rather than stationary - a shotgun is used with small shot which is generally ineffective for SD at distances greater than "room" distances (and arguably not even then).

Other mobile hunting with a rifle - such as rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. - is generally with a small caliber rifle such as a .22; again a generally ineffective SD choice.

I don't suppose I even need to address bow hunting or muzzleloader seasons, as it would seem obvious why carrying a handgun for SD would be needed.

A handgun in a holster can be safely carried loaded and can be deployed, in some instances, more effectively than a long gun.

Additionally, a handgun caliber is sometimes a better choice for killing wounded medium sized game at close range.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by alwaysshootin

Nacke? Winston?

If an American president/king/dictator, makes a presidential order/law, that no American can posses a firearm, of any kind, and, the supreme court says it's constitutional, is it?

I say no! That is my point. Any interpretation, of the Constitution, other than what it says, is the true radical. It is an easy read, and straight forward.

As far as the very religious, in WW2, the only reason it was meaningless, as you say, is because they were disarmed. I think it speaks volumes!

If the USSC upholds a law as constitutional, that ruling is absolutely the law of the land until it is changed via one of the constitutionally prescribed mechanisms. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not.

Several of us in this very thread have been having a discussion about how the Constitution is NOT always straightforward. What you meant to say was that it's straightforward according to your particular worldview and bias, but that's not objective. People pull the same stunt with regard to the Bible and it's no more valid in this case.

If you seriously think Jews packing small arms would have prevented the Holocaust, you're deluded.

[MacChiroCtr]

Originally Posted by rockapede

So, if we're looking for the "true" interpretation of the Constitution, does that mean women or elderly men have no right to keep and bear arms? Please understand, at least where you're concerned, I'm not trying to be confrontational. However, issues of language and the 18th century meanings of words are one very good justification for the USSC.

It's a good point, and very open to debate. When they wrote what they did, they did it as products of their time. When we read "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." I really don't think they meant it as a slight to women in the least... it's just how it was done in that time and place. And that may also be why the preamble to the 2nd amendment was not the only part of it, as in addition to the militia clause it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No restrictions there to women or the elderly... or to children for that matter.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by MacChiroCtr

It's a good point, and very open to debate. When they wrote what they did, they did it as products of their time. When we read "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." I really don't think they meant it as a slight to women in the least... it's just how it was done in that time and place. And that may also be why the preamble to the 2nd amendment was not the only part of it, as in addition to the militia clause it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No restrictions there to women or the elderly... or to children for that matter.

Fair enough . I'm in total agreement with your interpretation, I just take issue with people not smart or honest enough to admit it's possible to interpret it differently.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You mean, can you use speech to harm another without consequence?

Not surprised to see you come down on the side of the heavy handed state but that's just weak.

What is weak is insisting on a personal absolutist interpretation of one right then switch and maintain that other rights are not to be interpreted in the same absolute manner.

By your own response here you clearly recognize that rights can have restrictions on them that are not enumerated or even hinted at in the wording of the BOR itself.

It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering) that as implemented by the Founding Fathers the BOR placed Restriction on the Federal Govt not the States. Until the passage of the 14th amendment in 1878 NONE of the BOR was held to apply to the States.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

...

By your own response here you clearly recognize that rights can have restrictions on them that are not enumerated or even hinted at in the wording of the BOR itself.
...

That is not what he said/implied. From what I gather, he refers to the punishments available to remedy those who have been slandered/etc, not the (any) restrictions which may be in place to prevent the slanderous act in the 1st place.

Because really, there are very few mechanisms in place to "prevent" abuse of free speech, when compared to the proliferation of the means of free speech.


- not arguing anything else.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Atlas

The word "regulated" was used in that time to mean "well-equipped" or "well-trained".

This usage can be found in literature of the period, but is no longer common today.


It was used for example on clocks and timepieces of the period applied in a similar usage as "well-adjusted", to keep accurate time.

As an example, go back and look how the meaning of "gay" has change in to 200 years.

I think if you say

"He is a gay man" 200 years ago it would be taken in a completely different manner than it is today.

I highly suspect that the founding fathers would have nothing against a gay man but would have a lot against a homosexual man.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

What is weak is insisting on a personal absolutist interpretation of one right then switch and maintain that other rights are not to be interpreted in the same absolute manner.

By your own response here you clearly recognize that rights can have restrictions on them that are not enumerated or even hinted at in the wording of the BOR itself.

It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering), that the original purpose of the first amendment had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. The purpose was to prevent the government and public officials from shielding themselves from criticism, to remove the fear of seditious libel.

In that context, there is no restriction.

It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering) that as implemented by the Founding Fathers the BOR placed Restriction on the Federal Govt not the States. Until the passage of the 14th amendment in 1878 NONE of the BOR was held to apply to the States.

So we either have incorporation or we don't.

The appropriate analogy would be to compare whether or not Ohio can require a license to permit one to freely criticize the government in the same manner it requires one to have a license to have a loaded handgun under the seat in one's car.

Clearly it can't do the former to 1st Amendment rights but you support it's power to do so with 2nd Amendment rights.

[bmoore]

Originally Posted by Just_plinking

Grow Up. There are plenty of jobs in the United States that are more hazardous than being a police officer in which the practitioners of those occupations don't ask society to put their safety before the rights of the common man.

I'm all for officer safety, in fact I see it as a priority. But not at the expense of individual liberty. Otherwise, what did those officers work and sacrifice for?

Delete. Not worth it.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by bmoore

Delete. Not worth it.

Law Enforcement currently ranks 10th

http://pattyinglishms.hubpages.com/h...Dangerous_Jobs

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by Gallium

That is not what he said/implied. From what I gather, he refers to the punishments available to remedy those who have been slandered/etc, not the (any) restrictions which may be in place to prevent the slanderous act in the 1st place.

Because really, there are very few mechanisms in place to "prevent" abuse of free speech, when compared to the proliferation of the means of free speech.


- not arguing anything else.

Those "remedies" are laws which define and restrict the limits of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the Press".

That is clearly outside of an absolutist interpretation of the 1st amendment. To maintain that the first amendment is not absolute but the second is reveals an inconsistent interpretation methodology which is clearly based on self interest rather than sound interpretation principles or the historical record.

[Dragoon44]

It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering), that the original purpose of the first amendment had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted.

And the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with carrying what you want, when you want, however you want, wherever you want.

In that context, there is no restriction.

That is because you don't employ an absolutist interpretation method for that right.

So we either have incorporation or we don't.

That claim has absolutely NO historical standing. The SCOTUS at no time since the passage of the 14th amendment adopted such a view. Instead portions of the BOR (including piecemeal incorporation of only parts of many of the amendments rather than the entire amendment.) have been incorporated during a period of now over 130 years since the passage of the 14th amendment.

The appropriate analogy would be to compare whether or not Ohio can require a license to permit one to freely criticize the government in the same manner it requires one to have a license to have a loaded handgun under the seat in one's car.

Again your all or nothing claims and views won't withstand scrutiny. depending on how, when and where the citizen chooses to express his criticism he can indeed be required to obtain a permit before doing so.

[Dragoon44]

Noah Webster began his work on his dictionary in 1808 completing it and publishing it in 1828.

The meaning of the word regulated.

Regulated

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Clearly it can't do the former to 1st Amendment rights but you support it's power to do so with 2nd Amendment rights.

You win a Snickers bar.

Correctomundo. The BOR is a set of absolute minmums that apply to all states because they are the rights of individual.

Otherwise you could see CA ban Catholics, massachusetts say no one can even own a gun, MN could make newspapers illegal, arkansas could compel someone to incriminate himself at trial, etc.

No.They.Can't.

And the Tenth says all other things are left to the states or the peeps.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Noah Webster began his work on his dictionary in 1808 completing it and publishing it in 1828.

The meaning of the word regulated.

Regulated

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

In the parlance of the day, regulated meant "practiced" as applied to troop formations.

So a well regulated militia was one that practiced and trained.

Militias are both unorganized and organized. The unorganized milita would be average citizens.

In order the that the unorganized militia, the people be well regulated, their rights to should not be infringed or you're gonna be restricting their practice time. Folks need to be able to go out and shoot regularly.

[dbcooper]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Noah Webster began his work on his dictionary in 1808 completing it and publishing it in 1828.

The meaning of the word regulated.

Regulated

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

Regulated= Supplied