Jump to content

A Well Regulated Militia...

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, guilluamezenz said:

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

How do you reconcile that assertion with the analogous wording below? Few people suggest that ANY weapon is permitted, but all HAND-HELD weapons are certainly included, as that is precisely where the word "arms" comes from.


12 hours ago, kking said:

Not sure if this has been posted yet:

A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. 

Who has the right to food, a well-balanced breakfast or the people?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2019 at 10:12 PM, guilluamezenz said:

  A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990,



So you are confirming I was correct, you attribution for the fake quote you posted was a lie?



On 12/6/2019 at 10:12 PM, guilluamezenz said:

 the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.



Utter crap statement.  The writer is a longtime anti-gunner who is making an oft-heard misrepresentation -- the refutation of the straw-man that "the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun".  Only a disingenuous leftist or an constitutional imbecile would make such a statement . . .   It would never come from a gun rights supporter; someone who would know that the 2nd Amendment does not give the right to arms.



On 12/6/2019 at 10:12 PM, guilluamezenz said:

 Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.



Another utter crap statement.  The Supreme Court never embraced any other interpretation besides the individual right.  The various "collective right" theories such as conditioning or qualifying the right upon one's enrollment or attachment to any organized militia, had no presence in federal law until 1942 -- Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).

That's not to say that ridiculous theory was new in 1942, it was reanimated and reconstituted. 


Originally the theory was used in the 19th Century to deny the right to arms in the Southern states to deny Blacks the right to arms. Since federal law (Militia Act of 1792) only recognized "free able-bodied white male citizen" as being eligible / obligated for militia service, some southern states claimed their state right to arms was only recognized for militia members. This contrived qualification and conditioning was employed to legitimize and sustain state laws forbidding Blacks to posses guns.

The brutal enforcement of those gun prohibitions was a major reason why the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified. Of course the actual effect of enforcing the 2nd Amendment and invalidating discriminatory state laws was frustrated and delayed for years, see McDonald v Chicago, 2010.

As I noted above, this discriminatory and disgraceful theory laid dormant from the period of the Black Codes to when it was reanimated reworked and inserted in the federal courts in 1942 to legitimize and sustain the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Federal Firearms Act of 1938. 


That is the illustrious history of the "longstanding" denial of the individual right to keep and bear arms.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2019 at 8:12 PM, guilluamezenz said:

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. 



That is a bald-faced lie.  Plain and simple.


Throughout the 19th Century the Supreme Court ALWAYS characterized the 2nd Amendment as a right of individuals.  ALWAYS.  It was not until the abomination that was US v. Miller that the "collective" right interpretation was manufactured by the totalitarians.


You, sir, are a LIAR.


Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857)

[In the course of explaining that the Bill of Rights limited Congressional action in the Territories, the Court said:]


              The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out; and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.


              A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.


              For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.


              Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.  These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care.  Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law.  And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.


United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."  This is not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.  


United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 264 (1990)


The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

WashPost, Morning Mix reporter 

December 10 at 7:27 AM


Standing outside the medial examiner’s office Monday, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo

waited to escort the body of a fallen police sergeant to a funeral home. Just two days earlier,

Sgt. Christopher Brewster was killed in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call.


But to Acevedo, the fatal incident could have been prevented if the suspect who police say pulled

the trigger, Arturo Solis, never had access to a gun in the first place.


In blistering remarks to reporters outside the medical examiner’s office, Acevedo slammed

Republican leaders for failing for months to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act,

specifically calling out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Texas Republican

Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn for not supporting a provision that would prohibit dating

partners convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms — like Solis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Am a Well Regulated Militia.





"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.

  We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream.

The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we

fight for it, protect it, defend it,

and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons

of how they in their lifetime must do the same.

And if you and I don't do this,

then you and I may well spend our sunset years

telling our children and our children's children

what it once was like in America when men were free."

- Ronaldus Magnus -


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...