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.

Help For A Teacher

NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am a high school government/American history teacher. I am also a life member of the NRA and vice president of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance (to the chagrin of my school district). I am on the textbook adoption committee for government. We have our choices down to two books. Both, I believe, commit serious mistatements of fact concerning the Second Amendment. I am looking for citable sources to refute the following statements if anyone could help me:

Glencoe: United States Government: Democracy In Action, 2008 edition

"The Second Amendment means that only a state has the right to keep an armed militia. A 1939 Supreme Court ruling says the amendment applies only to state militias, thus allowing the government to limit gun ownership and sales (yes, I know they are referring to U.S. v. Miller, but, they don't say so or cite their claim).

Book #2 Prentice Hall: Magruders American Government 2008 edition:

"These words [the Second Amendment] excite as much controversy as any words in all of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the right of each state to keep a militia. The Amendment's aim was to preserve the concept of the citizen soldier. Many---including the Bush administration today---insist that the 2nd Amendment also sets out an individual right. They say that it guarantees a right to keep and bear arms just as for example, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has never accepted that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The only important 2nd Amendment case is U.S. v. Miller, 1939..." it goes on to say that the Court could find no valid link between the sawed off shotgun and a "well regulated militia."

What I need are points to refute the notion that the Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment is NOT and individual right, anything else you can throw in, and finally, do I make an issue of this? My pro-gun views have not endeared me to other members of the Social(ist) studies department so its not like I will lose any friends over this....Thanks!

Comments

  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Notpars;
    I am a bit surprised that you have had no help here.

    We have some erudite people here..and they have done their research.

    I have information I have gathered for 40 years. The hang-up is...I don't care anymore. I have absolutely no desire to slow the progress of the ba****** that are destroying America...and do my best to convince all that will listen that we merely delay the inevitable by 'fighting the good fight'.
    I firmly believe that unless the power-mad Elites make their move soon..before the over 50 crowd gets too old...America is lost.

    The ONLY way to get that movement is...withdraw from the political arena..the 'letters to the editor'...the so-called 'gun rights organizations'..allow these greedy slime the belief that it is safe to finalize their plans for America.

    I am sorry...but I cannot help you.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Too bad that these so called "experts" don't have a clue as to what civilian disarmament is all about. The real "gun control experts" are guys like Hitler or Stalin, who used gun control to exterminate millions. That's the lesson history should learn about gun control.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I firmly believe that unless the power-mad Elites make their move soon..before the over 50 crowd gets too old...America is lost.


    I have to respectfully disagree with you here Highball. A lot of the guys I know who are older than fifty are boldly supporting the Demokrats. Their philosophy seems to be: "I'm pro-gun, and pro-life, but the Republikans are no good, and I want my socialist security money."

    On the other hand, a lot of the kids I met at my small college tend to have a libertarian mindset.

    Just remember: When a person changes their pro/anti affiliation, they generally go from being anti-gun to pro-gun. Reason being, that the pro-gun people blame the CRIMINAL for the crimes, and would never recommend gun control as the solution. People who are anti generally start out that way, but may become pro-gun depending on what they learn about the topic. I know the facts back up the gun owners, and that is why no pro-gun people become antis.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I stand corrected.
    Some of the best men I know are 17-18 years old 'kids' that are furious at not being able to buy a gun...or having to ask permission to do so. NOT from their dads...oh,no...from some contemptable little twit sitting in anoffice somewhere, doing the bidding of their masters.
    I don't generally associate with the younsgters...so naturally they are 'all drugged up heavy metal freaks'...a typical reaction to the few drugged up heavy metal freaks that get in the news..

    By and large, perhaps the power mad slime-bags trying to take over America will have their hands full, anyway....
    Because sure as hell we old guys have screwed up royally by sitting on our fat duffs and allowing the country to be taken away from us.
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For Highball: Thannks, I was surprised too. I had to think long and hard before I opened my mouth. My colleagues are not tolerant of pro-gun people and have moved to isolate me in the past. But, I am willing to fight the good fight and pay the price.

    I understand your point of view and don't blame you one bit. We all have to decide for ourselves. I hate to agree, but I'm a bit pessimistic about the future of our rights as well. But, you know, the one thing that keeps me going is this. I keep going because of the people I had met in my life, some on this forum, or have read about, who fought the good fight and took a beating for it. Sometimes, we (and I'm as guilty as anyone) don't appreciate the sacrifices of others in the fight for our rights until they are gone. And they may never know this, but they inspire the rest of us to fight as well. Many of the people who have inspired me are deceased or we never actually met. I never know, maybe I inspire someone else. I've decided to leave all that I can on the battlefield and never give up. Please don't take this as not respectful of your point of view. We can all only take so much and I can see your point.
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For dSmith: Good point. Around my high school (and its a big one) the word among teachers is that if they are interested in purchasing a handgun, and don't know much about it, see me. That may not be such a good thing (I'm no expert) because when word gets around, it gets around. I know what they say about the NRA and such in our Socialist Studies Department meetings...and I'm a life member. But, I try to win over as many as possilbe.

    What I did was go to the websites of Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Foundation, and the NRA. None of them responded yet to my e-mails, but I did print some good articles they have on their websites. So this has been a help.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Another reason why you may not be getting much response to your post. If I understand your question correctly, you are asking for points where the Supreme Court has made a decision (or not) on the 2nd being an individual right. Is that about it? Since you already know about the case, "U.S. v. Miller, 1939" there is nothing more to tell. Since that case, the Supreme Court has refused every attempt to have them make ANY ruling on the 2nd.

    Or am I wrong as to what you were asking for?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    If you research the word "militia" I believe it did not come into useage in America until long after the US Constitution was written. If that is true, then that will take care of the argument about the 2A being only about the state militias being armed.

    If that is not the case, then consider this. I am surprised you have not carefully examined and compared your Missouri (and KS) state constitution against the US Constitution in an effort to find something that will help your (our) case/position. Both the MO and KS (and several other states) constitutions clearly and with no room for argument give gun ownership/carry rights to the citizens. This dispite the fact that right, until CCW was passed, was unconstitutionally denied (still is actually) to the citizens. So if the state constitutions provide for citizen gun rights, it would seem odd that, if the US Constitution 2A only provided for the states to have an armed milita, why is it that no where in that state constitution (I believe) does that subject state not mention this "armed state milita" right that supposely the US Constitution grants to the states?

    On top of all that, if is totally illogical for the framers of the US Constitution to have mentioned basically only citizen rights in the bill of rights but suddenly one of the bill of rights (the 2A) supposely only applies to the states. That doesn't make sense.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    If you research the word "militia" I believe it did not come into useage in America until long after the US Constitution was written.


    fox, maybe I'm misreading your statement....

    Militia is a term that pre-dates the Constitution far.

    The backbone of the Washington's army was state militias.

    Militias were expected to provide their own weapons and muster at a moments notice, hence the term "minuteman"
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Even if you except the "National Guard" aurgument (I don't) you have to realize that this too has been violated.

    The National Guard now rests under federal command, something the founders would have strongly protested....
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Please don't misread me;
    for I have only begun to fight. The fight I refer to is the national, beg a politician on your belly fight...the 'lets send money to the nra/goa/ect/ect' fight...
    Today I fight on a personal level...winning one round at a time.... eye-to-eye....teaching those receptive...and some not-so-receptive..about what freedom really should be.

    You,Notpars, are in a position and are trying to slow the juggernaut...and SLOW it is ALL you will achieve...and that runs contrary to what I believe is needed today.
    I laud you for your attempt..I respect the pressure you are in surrounded by the Socialists you work with...and keeping your feet grounded in being an American is extremely difficult....most of your co-workers have little comprehension of what "American" means...

    BTW;
    "A well regulated Militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed"
    THAT, friend Fox, IS the Bill of Rights..effective Dec.15,1791. The Founders were well aware of what the Militia was. The slime-bag gun grabbers have perverted tne word to mean the Natioal Guard...which was not in existance at the time of either the Declaration nor the Bill of Rights
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HighVolumeOfFire
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    If you research the word "militia" I believe it did not come into useage in America until long after the US Constitution was written.


    fox, maybe I'm misreading your statement....

    Militia is a term that pre-dates the Constitution far.

    The backbone of the Washington's army was state militias.

    Militias were expected to provide their own weapons and muster at a moments notice, hence the term "minuteman"

    Thank you. I believe you are correct and I am too lazy to check.

    If that is the case, then I claim that the term "...a well regulated milltias, being necessary to the security of a free state..." refers to the fact that the non-militia citizens were to be armed so as to insure they would be able to defend themselves and remain "in a free state" if the militias ever turned on the citizens. In other words, by the non-militia citizens possessing arms, they themselves would be capable of "regulating the militias".

    I will add that the term "regulated," back in the days when the constitution was written, usually was referring to "smooth and dependable operation". That is why if you go to antique shows or read about antiques, you will find many clocks using the names of "Regulator", etc. So on that I would claim that if the founding fathers did indeed refer to the citizen militia in the 2A, then they were actually referring to the common citizens who, when necessary, would grab their firearms and link up into a "militia" in order to protect and defend.

    In addition, if what you say is true, that the term "militias" existed and was used by Americans before the US Constitution was written, then that actually makes for a stronger argument that the several state constitutions that clearly mention the citizens in regards to their right of firearm ownship/carry were indeed referring to the private citizens. Reason being that all state constitutions were written long after the US Constitution and there would be little reason to think there should be any confusion about terms used in regards to firearms and common citizens.

    And this is important because the various states constitutions are much more than just worthless paper. For God's sake, that is the constitution for that particular state and should never, ever just be ignored or brushed aside. Especially if that constitution might be a source for us to use to prove our gun rights.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    NOTPARS, I apologize for not reading this thread sooner.

    I think the reason you are having difficulty finding material refuting the position these textbooks take in defining the Supreme Court's position on the 2nd Amendment is because it cannot be refuted. The Supreme Court has indeed interpreted the 2nd Amendment as a collective right, not an individual right.

    I disagree with the Glencoe excerpt. I think it greatly over-simplifies and distorts the Supreme Court's position on the 2nd Amendment. The Prentice Hall excerpt at least frames the argument a little more fairly, although U.S. v. Miller was not the only 2A case, just the most recent and significant to date.

    To understand the Supreme Court's position in U.S. v. Miller, we must understand the circumstances of the case. Miller was a bootlegger caught with a sawed-off shotgun (banned by NFA 1934) in prohibition America. NFA 1934 was intended to target thugs and gangsters. Bootlegger hillbillies apparently were targeted as well. I don't know exactly how this bootlegger got enough representation to get the case as far as the Supreme Court, but he did it, and he did it on the arguement the NFA 1934 was totally unconstitutional because he was a legitimate member of "the Militia"... but when his big day in front of the Supremes came, Miller DIDN'T SHOW UP!!!

    So much for resting the future of our constitutional rights on a hillbilly bootlegger. Because Miller was a no-show, his lawyers could not speak without their client present, and therefore they didn't even bother to show up either. The Court did allow the government to argue its case, so the Miller decision was a loss before the Court was even called into session.

    However, there are some significant things that came out of the Miller opinion:

    1. The discussion of the meaning and intention of the term "Militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment.

    2. The question as to whether a shotgun, with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, has a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

    In the decision written by Justice McReynolds, there is significant citation of colonial sources as to ascertain the meaning of the term "Militia". Oddly, he never once cites U.S. Code TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, ? 311, which clearly defines the "Militia" as:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are-
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Although this code has been slightly revised since the Miller case, its basic text has not changed since the Militia Act of 1792. Despite its omission in the Miller decision, the Court's opinion appears to come to the conclusion that Miller did indeed meet the qualifications of being a member of "the Militia", as defined in the 2nd Amendment.

    The point that lost the case for Miller was the Court's opinion that a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches was not considered a standard nor appropriate arm to be carried by the Militia, and was therefore not covered by the 2nd Amendment. In the Court's opinion, the 2nd Amendment only covered common military arms of the day.

    There are two very important things for pro-gunners to draw from this opinion:

    1. Despite the flawed logic of the Court's opinion, they did plainly admit justification for ownership of common military arms by the Militia (meaning us citizens).

    2. They disqualified a sawed-off shotgun as being a common military arm of the day, despite the fact that sawed-off trench shotguns were commonly used in World War I by the U.S. Military. If Miller and his lawyers had been present, they may have been able to argue this and may have WON THE CASE!!!

    The full text of the Miller opinion can be found here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

    NOTPARS, I don't know if any of this will help you with arguing your position regarding the selection of a textbook, but perhaps you will find some "ammunition" on the subject, if only for your next confrontation with an anti-gun Liberal.

    Best of luck,
    WoundedWolf

    UPDATE: According to Wikipedia, the reason that Miller didn't show up was because he was DEAD. This is the first time I have heard that explanation, but it makes a lot of sense. Apparently the co-defendant, Layton, took a plea bargain before the case reached the Supreme Court, so he had no interest in pursuing the case.
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For pickenup: Thanks for clarifying what I obviously found a way to muddle. Right you are. Both books argue that the Court has never accepted the individual rights point of view of firearm ownership and they provide Miller as an example.

    Now if I understand you correctly, what I should argue is

    1. This is a strawman argument to say the Court hasn't accepted
    the individual rights interpretation because it has never
    ruled on that view one way or another.

    2. I'll re-read Miller, but I believe it has nothing to do with the
    claim of no individual right (I have a copy now).

    Do you think that is a better approach? Again, I really appreciate the help more than you know.
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For trFox: You are right of course and I need to get on the ball. All that I can say is that I just finished a graduate program in history and have been wall to wall busy on my thesis. In short, no time. But, I need to get my facts straight before I tangle with these folks which is why I appreciate your advice..which I am going to follow. I need to get a copy of the Missouri Constitution. It is LOOOOOOOOONG! This is the kind of advice/help I was looking for and a big help. Again, thanks!

    trfox: On second thought, your post is so good I have printed it and I even grabbed it off the printer across the hall from my room before my anti-gun colleagues got it and ran with it to the principal...again.
    This is a great argument you have crafted!
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For Highball: Thanks, somedays I feel like I am wasting my time, but then, I owe it to you and everyone else, including my family, to keep up the fight the best I can. You folks help me do this.
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In my own reading/research, the term militia varied from colony to colony but generally, included any able bodied male, ages vary, who could be called upon to defend home and town and colony. Later, the term excluded organized armies. Well regulated, I believe, refers to the fact that they own a firearm and did some occasional drilling, it did not mean "regulated" (controlled, subordinate to) by the State.
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For WoundedWolf:

    No need to apologize, you have no idea how much I appreciate all of the posters. You folks are now in the classroom!

    Anyway, because this will lead to a debate with my colleagues, and I plan to write to the professors who authored the texts, I want to be real certain I understand what you are saying.

    Are you saying the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective rather than individual right (something that would come as a surprise to the Framers)? If so, I need to have the case/ruling so that I can cite it.

    Your explanation is very good and a huge help. Again, don't underestimate how valuable your help is for me. Most of my colleagues range from ambivalent to very hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. I am going to run down Miller and re-read it and use your line of reasoning. You all have done a great job and service and I can't thank you enough.

    P.S. one of the facts I learned during my research to teach government was that the Framers of the Constitution never intended and rejected the right of the Supreme Court to have the authority of judicial review. In fact, Chief Justice Marshall admitted this in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 but realized that over time, if the court continued to rule on that which it had no authority to rule, people would gradually accept this as a fact. So, in reality, they have no authority but not many know this and others would say who cares.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The strongest argument I can advance is a simple one.

    The Founders were intelligent men. They had just thrown off the yoke of tyranny..The King.

    The begged, petitioned, and lobbied for relief..and only fired the shot heard round the world when the Kings' men marched to confiscate powder, shot, and arms from the colonists.

    How can any sane person advance the argument that the Founders EVER intended the government have the power to limit firearms...EVER AGAIN..to citizens ?
    And a pox on the weak-kneed amoung us that believe that the King...errr,sorry..the government has the authority to do so.
  • 11b6r11b6r Member Posts: 16,725
    edited November -1
    Just for grins, do a bit of research on the words of the framers of the Constitution as THEY defined militia. As in- "What is the militia? It is the whole body of the populace...." Read some of Jefferson's (and George Mason's) words. The argument that the "militia" is the National Guard does not hold water- since the Guard was created LONG after the Bill of Rights. Here in Virginia, the state Code defines militia as all able bodied citizens of the Commonwealth between ages of X and Y that are NOT members of the Armed Forces. Good luck. By the way- I am sure that Freedom of Speech cannot apply to radio, TV, or the internet- since they were created long after the Bill of Rights. (GRIN) Next time someone tells you the 2nd Amendment could not apply to an AR-15, try THAT one on them!
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Are you saying the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective rather than individual right (something that would come as a surprise to the Framers)? If so, I need to have the case/ruling so that I can cite it.

    NOTPARS, here is a very good article on this issue:

    http://www.handguncontrol.net/second_amendment.htm

    My personal opinion is that at some point in the early 20th Century the idea of "collective rights" was introduced (coincidentally around the same time Communism came into vogue), and the Social Liberals decided that a "collective right" could replace an individual/human right. Of course, "collective rights" mean that the collective (the government) chooses which rights you have. Certainly that is the antithesis of what our Founders intended, yet the judiciary has embraced this concept over the last century.

    Just my humble opinion,
    WoundedWolf
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
    For trFox: You are right of course and I need to get on the ball. All that I can say is that I just finished a graduate program in history and have been wall to wall busy on my thesis. In short, no time. But, I need to get my facts straight before I tangle with these folks which is why I appreciate your advice..which I am going to follow. I need to get a copy of the Missouri Constitution. It is LOOOOOOOOONG! This is the kind of advice/help I was looking for and a big help. Again, thanks!

    trfox: On second thought, your post is so good I have printed it and I even grabbed it off the printer across the hall from my room before my anti-gun colleagues got it and ran with it to the principal...again.
    This is a great argument you have crafted!





    Geez, NOTPARS, thanks for making my day. I'm staying on this cloud the rest of the weekend [8D]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
    For WoundedWolf:

    No need to apologize, you have no idea how much I appreciate all of the posters. You folks are now in the classroom!

    Anyway, because this will lead to a debate with my colleagues, and I plan to write to the professors who authored the texts, I want to be real certain I understand what you are saying.

    Are you saying the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective rather than individual right (something that would come as a surprise to the Framers)? If so, I need to have the case/ruling so that I can cite it.

    Your explanation is very good and a huge help. Again, don't underestimate how valuable your help is for me. Most of my colleagues range from ambivalent to very hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. I am going to run down Miller and re-read it and use your line of reasoning. You all have done a great job and service and I can't thank you enough.

    P.S. one of the facts I learned during my research to teach government was that the Framers of the Constitution never intended and rejected the right of the Supreme Court to have the authority of judicial review. In fact, Chief Justice Marshall admitted this in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 but realized that over time, if the court continued to rule on that which it had no authority to rule, people would gradually accept this as a fact. So, in reality, they have no authority but not many know this and others would say who cares.


    In red above. I have long noticed that the liberal anti-gun hostility is invisible towards the thugs, drug dealers and violent criminals in our society. Instead that hostility is directed only at us peaceful, lawful gun owners. Liberal anti-gun hostility directed at us legal gun owners in the form of more and more overly strict gun laws (laws ignored by the OUTLAWS), the waste of millions of dollars of anti-gun acitivity that totally fail to control the problem (violent criminals), and instead only impact the already lawful gun owners, a generally evil image of lawful gun owners in society, in Hollywood and the media, etc.

    But worse, is the attitudes and the disagreements and debates that occur just as NOTPARS is describing in his own school. His own professional collegues apparently have some contempt and loathing for the gunownership of NOTPARS and maybe, since he defends his right, maybe even loathing for NOTPARS himself.

    Yet even as I observe this situation from far away, I am able to know several things about NOTPARS. If he is legally able to purchase a firearm through an FFL using the form 4473, I know that NOTPARS is not an illegal alien, never been dishonorably discharged from the US armed forces, is not addicted to alchohol or drugs, has never, ever been convicted of even a minor league felony, never been convicted of a domestic misdeamnor, has never renounced his citizenship nor belongs to any organzation that advocates the overthrow of the US Government, and on and on.

    In my mind such facts about NOTPARS makes him an above average citizen in my book. In fact, probably a better citizen than some of his fellow teachers who criticize him!

    I would be willing to bet money that some of the very people who criticize him and his gun ownership are not able to pass the background check on a form 4473.

    So what I am getting at is that few, if any, of that anti-gun liberal left EVER actually debate with or criticize the actually people who commit the crimes while ILLEGALLY using guns. Nor do they go into the hood' and lecture the violent drug dealers and gang bangers about their evil misuse of guns. No, instead they take the safe and easy route and instead direct their hate, contempt, mistrust, debates and lectures at us, the ones who cause no problems. The peaceful, lawful gun owners.

    The hypocrisy of the liberal left is even evidenced by the fact that they rarely, if ever, lobby for gun control laws that would only impact the unlawful criminals. By this I mean they never advocate for very strict gun laws such as a mandatory life sentence for anyone with a violent criminal history who uses a gun during a crime.

    Of course a better sentence for someone with a violent criminal history who uses a firearm during a crime would be a mandatory death sentence. Since while many criminals who are walking the streets seem quite willing to accept many years (or even life) in prison for their crimes, few of them are anxious to face a mandatory death sentence. Of couse, the liberal left doesn't support ANY death sentence because that is too cruel on the violent criminals. But the liberal left, while quite willing to pile more and more useless gun control laws on us already lawful gun owners, have little interest in making the punishment very severe for firearm misuse by violent criminals.

    The liberal left seems to project several perversions in their thinking and lifestyles. One such perversion is that for some reason they hate us lawful, peaceful gun owners more than they hate the violent, illegal gun using criminals. I can only guess that is because the liberals forgive in advance the criminals for their violent misuse of guns because the criminals have had a difficult life, faced discrimination, lived in poverty, don't know who their father is, can't "find" a job, been "forced" into drug addiction, etc. and therefore don't know any better than to do driveby shootings, rob, rape, and murder people while using guns.

    But the liberals don't excuse us lawful gun owners. In their eyes we should" know better "than to want to own and use guns.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox


    The liberal left seems to project several perversions in their thinking and lifestyles. One such perversion is that for some reason they hate us lawful, peaceful gun owners more than they hate the violent, illegal gun using criminals. I can only guess that is because the liberals forgive in advance the criminals for their violent misuse of guns because the criminals have had a difficult life, faced discrimination, lived in poverty, don't know who their father is, can't "find" a job, been "forced" into drug addiction, etc. and therefore don't know any better than to do driveby shootings, rob, rape, and murder people while using guns.

    But the liberals don't excuse us lawful gun owners. In their eyes we should" know better "than to want to own and use guns.


    You are exactly right. However, the reason the liberals "forgive" the violent criminals is more devious. They control through fear. The Brady Bunch, the media, and the groups representing "victimized" minorities or women, all use fear against the members they claim to empower.

    They want laws putting strict regulations on the law abiding. They want an excuse to parole violent felons in order to free up prison space for otherwise good law abiding citizens who just happen to be using illegal drugs. If your friends are being sent to prison for drug charges, and the violent criminals are once again on the streets, all the while you are being left more and more defenseless against both the criminals and the tyrants, you are more likely to live in fear. Then government only has to promise you that they can releive your fears IF ONLY you will give up more of your freedom. They can then make the situation worse for you, in order to ask for more power.
  • fitzx2fitzx2 Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    After reading US vs Miller, one can only correctly conclude that the court clearly established the definition of "militia" as used in the Second Amendment. As cited by Justice McReynolds:

    "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

    ...and furthermore...

    "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."

    Um...thats an AR-15 (if not for NFA 1934, it would be an M-16) today folks!

    Though the court ruled against Mr. Miller based on the NFA 1934, the only correct interpretation of US vs. Miller is one that acknowleges that the court went to great lengths to preserve an understanding of the Second Amendment whereby it is an individual right to keep and bear arms. They cited state constitutions and several historical commentators on the US Constitution to make it clear that individuals indeed do have the right (and duty!) to keep and bear the weapons (and ammo) of the day that are commonly used for military service.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Though the court ruled against Mr. Miller based on the NFA 1934, the only correct interpretation of US vs. Miller is one that acknowleges that the court went to great lengths to preserve an understanding of the Second Amendment whereby it is an individual right to keep and bear arms. They cited state constitutions and several historical commentators on the US Constitution to make it clear that individuals indeed do have the right (and duty!) to keep and bear the weapons (and ammo) of the day that are commonly used for military service.

    I agree, fitz. In fact, I think the reason that the Court did not declare NFA 1934 unconsitutional is because the Fed lawyers argued that it was merely a tax collecting measure. Indeed, NFA 1934 did not outright ban full-autos and short barrel shotguns, it simply created a fee and licensing system for acquiring these arms, hence our Class 3 system of today.

    To me, that is still infringement, but I think the Justices probably considered it to be a minor inconvenience (and a tax revenue source). Unfortunately their decision paved the way for the further bans in 1968, 1986, and 1994.

    Remember, Miller was only charged because he didn't have a federal stamp making his short barrel shotgun legal, and he had transported that shotgun across state lines, thus involving the Feds.
  • Wagon WheelWagon Wheel Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Very interesting thread, with lots of good comments and information. If I may, I'd like to toss in some decisions that got my attention.

    FROM - Descriptions of the Supreme Court gun cases:
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/supreme_cases.html


    U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971)
    In this case the court re-examined the NFA after the revisions of 1968, and found it was just fine, at least as to the 5th amendment problem of the old NFA. Freed was caught with hand grenades in Calif; one of his claims was that he couldn't register them because that would put him in violation of state law. The court said that would be compelled self incrimination, except that the NFA forbade the release of registration info, so the feds could not tell Calif. about his grenades, nor could the fact of registration be used in a Calif trial against him. The court also pointed out that the new NFA changed the burden of registration, and admitting possession to the transferor, not the transferee, as before. Thus Freed could not register anything in his possession, nor was he required to. But possession of unregistered items was still illegal, and he could be prosecuted for that. This also closed the ability for persons to add weapons in their possession to the Registry; NFA weapons could be added to the Registry only upon making or import (or by a law enforcement type agency, for their own use). Any law that requires gun registration, w/o promising confidentiality of the registration info, likely violates the 5th amendment, as there is no protection from using the info to prosecute a felon or other such person for possessing a firearm when they are not permitted to by law. However it is questionable as to whether this defense to non-registration can be used by anyone except someone who would actually be incriminated; that is you must be actually unable to lawfully possess guns, and then be prosecuted for failing to register them, to take advantage of the loophole. This is why registration schemes are by definition only aimed at the law abiding. Felons have a 5th amendment protection from being prosecuted for violating such schemes.

    U.S. v. Lopez, __ U.S. __ (1995)
    This case is from 1995, where the court, on a 5-4 vote struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act (18 USC sec. 922(q)) as being beyond the power of Congress to enact, under the Constitution. Congress claimed, as it does with most of its enactments, that it was exercising its power to regulate interstate commerce, and had all sorts of made-up reasons why kids with guns at local public and private schools affected interstate commerce. The Court said no, it was too much of a stretch. Yes, they had let Congress run roughshod over the principle of a limited federal government, or enumerated powers in the past; they were drawing a line now. Check out Justice Thomas' concurrence, no one else would join him. In it he lays out a truly revolutionary idea - that the fundamental ideas the court has used to review Congressional enactment for constitutionality, at least since the 1930's are wrong, and need to be scrapped. Excellent thinking, too bad no one else there agrees with him. Anyway, this case is a good argument to use anytime a federal law is nominally based on the power to regulate interstate commerce, but goes far beyond that sort of commerce, or doesn't note any connection to commerce. Like 922(o), the mg making ban, for instance. The federal district court in US v. Bownds used the 5th circuit opinion in this same case, which the Supremes affirmed here, to strike down 922(o) as beyond Congressional power. It gives a good boost to a Bownds on appeal to the 5th circuit.


    United States of America, v. Charles M. Bownds. (Aug. 18, 1994.)

    While this Court expresses no opinion as to the power of Congress to regulate possession of machine guns at a national level, it simply finds that Congress made no findings, explicit or implied, to support its authority to ban the mere possession of machine guns. The Tenth Amendment is still a part of the Constitution. It is not difficult for Congress to find an interstate nexus as a part of its legislative history process or for Congress to require an interstate nexus as an element of the crime itself. [footnote 6] In light of the Fifth Circuit's recent holding in Lopez, this Court finds 18 U.S.C. section 922(o) unconstitutional and orders the indictment against Defendant Charles Bownds dismissed.
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_bownds.txt


    Concerning Militias, look this over.

    Mandatory Gun Ownership, the Militia Census of 1806, and Background Assumptions concerning the Early American Right to Arms: A Cautious Response to Robert Churchill By: WILLIAM G. MERKEL

    http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.1/merkel.html
Sign In or Register to comment.