In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
For all those on here who believe in "some regulations":
1) The 2nd Amendment affirms a "right". When you have to fill out a form, apply for a permit, or be approved on some other criteria, you no longer have a "right", but a privilege.
2) The criminal element would in no way, shape, or form be affected if the RTKBA was de-regulated. Criminals do what criminals do; commit crime, regardless of what the laws state. De-regulation just gives the rest of us a better, fighting chance against criminals, whether they wear baggy pants, or a uniform.
3) Any regulation/restriction placed upon RTKBA is unconstitutional; therefore rendering said regulation/restriction unlawful. That's right, i said unlawful. "but, but, we need some regulation."
No, we do not.
If you agree the Constitution of the United States is "the law", it stands to reason that any regulation/restriction contrary to "the law" is, well, unlawful. Fact, not opinion.
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
select, I know your description is tongue-in-cheek, at least I hope it is, but it is such a target rich environment, I can't resist replying as if you were serious about some of the points raised.
Well the Feds regulated machine guns in 1934.
Yep they did, contrary to Amendment II.
Why?
Citizens could not be trusted with firearms equivalent to those the government had in the eyes of the Federal gov't.
How else could government proceed with usurping powers not granted it in the Constitution?
Cause a bunch of idiots were out there shooting up the place. How about the St. Valentines day massacre. How about reckless bank robbers like John Dillenger?
Oh heavens![:0][:0][:0]
How about punishing the individuals who committed the heinous acts and not restricting all citizens from possessing an inanimate object, particularly an object which is Constitutionally protected?
What a concept, huh?
A clear distinction between Collectivism -vs- Individualism in government.
Well the govt. put hits on these people and cleaned up the stituation and decided the weapons they used would NOT be illegal but registered so they knew who had them.
And just where did "the govt" get the authority to do so?
Sound realistic?
Not one bit.
WE didn't lose the weapons. Now get ready ... it could happen to black rifles. Would you pay $200 bucks apiece to keep your black guns? Don't * and moan.. they are not taking them away. I can't help some morons have abused use of these guns. Don't be surprised someday everygun in your household will be accounted for or a registration fee be imposed.
quote:a. "Well-Regulated Militia." In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, ?8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 23
Opinion of the Court Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, ?8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," ?8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it-and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights ?13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, 24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court trained to arms").
Clearly since it was important that we had arms to bear against England, our fore fathers saw the need to permit the civilians to have the CAPACITY to form a well regulated milita
Why don't we go to school and work on the weekends and take the week off!
a long long looong time ago, when I was in grade school in fact, we were told that when they were setting up this coutry and figuring out the laws, they said they would rather let ten criminals go free than imprison one innocent man.
what does it look like nowadays. the other way around, huh.
quote:Originally posted by cartod
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by BlueTic
Well Regulated in the 1700s is a term for well supplied/trained.
Hence the term "regular"
So be it. I still say if we fight for NO LAWS....We Loose.
quote:Originally posted by cartod
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:With that said, would you PLEASE kill someone and soon. I can only read so much of your dribble before I get sick to my stomach.
My, my, my...such hostility.
Perhaps if you had spent your LEO career fighting for the Constitution, instead of some perverted, twisted version of it.you would be more understanding about the things I talk about.
Does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to pass and enforce gun laws ?
Would you rather gun laws be county by county?
The Constitution forbids gun laws in the United States of America.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an effective unorganized Militia without the ability of the people to 'keep and bear arms'.
Why the hell do you suppose the Elites finally rammed through the standing army ? The Founders never intended a standing army..figuring correctly that at some point they would be used against the people...just as they ALWAYS are.
If people could just break out of one ridged mind-set..instilled by those in power.
That being that government is good, just, and working tirelessly 'for the people'.
When that milestone is reached...the answer as to why all the gun laws ? is INSTANTLY answered.
Eather you are for our rights or against them. There is NO room for restrictions on the 2nd since the TRUE intent of the 2nd is to keep the GOVERNMENT in check. That being said ANYONE with a brain would understand that people have the RIGHT and DUTY to arm themselves with ANYTHING that those who seek to oppress them would use.................. For anyone who does not agree it will be NO surprize to see you side with the enemy. We are getting very close to the point of NO return. Our country has been sold out and soon we will be reduced to no more than a dictatorship were people are no longer citizens but rather subjects just as it was before our founders won our independence for EVERY AMERICAN even those who are not willing to protect and preserve our freedoms. For those who are TRUE Americans that believe in protecting and preserving our freedoms, get ready because the s#*t is fixing to hit the fan.
[V]I see extremism is alive and well here!!![;)]
I am neither a democtrat or republican, I am a realist. This decission was limited to a limited seat of circumstances. Considering these it was a good ruling for those of us who beleive the 2nd amendment MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS! Is the fight over, not by along way, so stop ranting and get in to the fight. Talks is cheap. My stance on this issue nearly cost me my pension, what have any of you 'extermist' done to further the cause????[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by chappsyny
I am against any laws that deal with the purchase, possession or carrying of firearms, but I am all for laws that punish the criminal misuse of firearms.
And that sir, is how it should be.
Punish criminal "acts", not regulate and restrict "individuals" in exercising their rights.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
[V]I see extremism is alive and well here!!![;)]
I am neither a democtrat or republican, I am a realist. This decission was limited to a limited seat of circumstances. Considering these it was a good ruling for those of us who beleive the 2nd amendment MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS! Is the fight over, not by along way, so stop ranting and get in to the fight. Talks is cheap. My stance on this issue nearly cost me my pension, what have any of you 'extermist' done to further the cause????[:(!]
Some of us have paid for the 2nd with our health and lives...
Comments
1) The 2nd Amendment affirms a "right". When you have to fill out a form, apply for a permit, or be approved on some other criteria, you no longer have a "right", but a privilege.
2) The criminal element would in no way, shape, or form be affected if the RTKBA was de-regulated. Criminals do what criminals do; commit crime, regardless of what the laws state. De-regulation just gives the rest of us a better, fighting chance against criminals, whether they wear baggy pants, or a uniform.
3) Any regulation/restriction placed upon RTKBA is unconstitutional; therefore rendering said regulation/restriction unlawful. That's right, i said unlawful. "but, but, we need some regulation."
No, we do not.
If you agree the Constitution of the United States is "the law", it stands to reason that any regulation/restriction contrary to "the law" is, well, unlawful. Fact, not opinion.
select, I know your description is tongue-in-cheek, at least I hope it is, but it is such a target rich environment, I can't resist replying as if you were serious about some of the points raised.
Well the Feds regulated machine guns in 1934.
Yep they did, contrary to Amendment II.
Why?
Citizens could not be trusted with firearms equivalent to those the government had in the eyes of the Federal gov't.
How else could government proceed with usurping powers not granted it in the Constitution?
Cause a bunch of idiots were out there shooting up the place. How about the St. Valentines day massacre. How about reckless bank robbers like John Dillenger?
Oh heavens![:0][:0][:0]
How about punishing the individuals who committed the heinous acts and not restricting all citizens from possessing an inanimate object, particularly an object which is Constitutionally protected?
What a concept, huh?
A clear distinction between Collectivism -vs- Individualism in government.
Well the govt. put hits on these people and cleaned up the stituation and decided the weapons they used would NOT be illegal but registered so they knew who had them.
And just where did "the govt" get the authority to do so?
Sound realistic?
Not one bit.
WE didn't lose the weapons. Now get ready ... it could happen to black rifles. Would you pay $200 bucks apiece to keep your black guns? Don't * and moan.. they are not taking them away. I can't help some morons have abused use of these guns. Don't be surprised someday everygun in your household will be accounted for or a registration fee be imposed.
quote:a. "Well-Regulated Militia." In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, ?8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 23
Opinion of the Court Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, ?8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," ?8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it-and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights ?13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, 24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court trained to arms").
what does it look like nowadays. the other way around, huh.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by BlueTic
Well Regulated in the 1700s is a term for well supplied/trained.
Hence the term "regular"
So be it. I still say if we fight for NO LAWS....We Loose.
BS...That is EXACTLY what the Constitution SAYS!
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:With that said, would you PLEASE kill someone and soon. I can only read so much of your dribble before I get sick to my stomach.
My, my, my...such hostility.
Perhaps if you had spent your LEO career fighting for the Constitution, instead of some perverted, twisted version of it.you would be more understanding about the things I talk about.
Does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to pass and enforce gun laws ?
Would you rather gun laws be county by county?
The Constitution forbids gun laws in the United States of America.
Why the hell do you suppose the Elites finally rammed through the standing army ? The Founders never intended a standing army..figuring correctly that at some point they would be used against the people...just as they ALWAYS are.
If people could just break out of one ridged mind-set..instilled by those in power.
That being that government is good, just, and working tirelessly 'for the people'.
When that milestone is reached...the answer as to why all the gun laws ? is INSTANTLY answered.
You will fit in really well with the NRA guys. A compromise here a wink there, and pretty soon no guns.
What part of, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
+1000!
I am neither a democtrat or republican, I am a realist. This decission was limited to a limited seat of circumstances. Considering these it was a good ruling for those of us who beleive the 2nd amendment MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS! Is the fight over, not by along way, so stop ranting and get in to the fight. Talks is cheap. My stance on this issue nearly cost me my pension, what have any of you 'extermist' done to further the cause????[:(!]
I am against any laws that deal with the purchase, possession or carrying of firearms, but I am all for laws that punish the criminal misuse of firearms.
And that sir, is how it should be.
Punish criminal "acts", not regulate and restrict "individuals" in exercising their rights.
What a concept, huh?
[V]I see extremism is alive and well here!!![;)]
I am neither a democtrat or republican, I am a realist. This decission was limited to a limited seat of circumstances. Considering these it was a good ruling for those of us who beleive the 2nd amendment MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS! Is the fight over, not by along way, so stop ranting and get in to the fight. Talks is cheap. My stance on this issue nearly cost me my pension, what have any of you 'extermist' done to further the cause????[:(!]
Some of us have paid for the 2nd with our health and lives...