why do people hate the ACLU?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sward666
So on the one hand, I can't have a sawed-off shotgun because it's not a military weapon; on the other hand, I can't have an M-16 because it is a military weapon.

Their "nuclear warhead" argument is ridiculous. It's "keep and bear arms", not "keep and bear ordnance".

Bingo. Bombs, missiles, grenades, artilery and the like are NOT arms.

Yes, because when you don't like the definition of the word refuse to acknowledge it, and if that fails mention "common sense".

Main Entry: arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma
1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM b : a combat branch (as of an army) c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2 plural a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3 plural a : active hostilities : WARFARE b : military service
- up in arms : aroused and ready to undertake hostilities

Nice. Use modern definitions to explain a 220+ year old document. Historians ALL agree that in Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

But then SAMs, RPGs, LAWs, .50 Machineguns and the like are?

Um, no. Those would be "rockets." In other words, "Ordnance."

As for the 50 cal MG, yes, that would qualify as "arms."

 

[Bulk Beef]

I still don't see anybody arguing over the definition of "people", nor explaining how "the people" referenced in the Second are demonstrably different than "the people" referenced in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sward666
I still don't see anybody arguing over the definition of "people", nor explaining how "the people" referenced in the Second are demonstrably different than "the people" referenced in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

I clairified that, but no one has challenged it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sward666
I still don't see anybody arguing over the definition of "people", nor explaining how "the people" referenced in the Second are demonstrably different than "the people" referenced in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

I clairified that, but no one has challenged it.

Because it would be absurd to do so.

And the fact the Supremes are been dodging the issue for over 50 years is no argument in favor of any side - it just means they're refusing to kick a hornet's nest.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rahvin
One question amused did you read the actual judgement I linked? Did you notice the court extensively studied what a millitia was and it actually listed the laws from about 6 states?

[edit]

THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER
"TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE
UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR
ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING
SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE
DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE
CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE
DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST
BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.

[/edit]

You would do good to actually read my post. I linked to Miller first.

And it says this:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' 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.

THIS is their accepted definition of the term "militia." Learn to comprehend what you read.

It then goes on to see what state constitutions may say. But it NEVER uses the term "state militia." Nor does it come to the conclusion that the 2nd is some absurd "collective right."

I read what you linked (although the opinion of the decision is a bit second handed and I prefer to read the actual courts opinion) and what you wrote, answer my question did you read the actual ruling that I linked?

Yes the militia is composed of the able bodied men on the country supplying their own firearms, BUT the militia exists for protection of the union AND is regulated and controlled by the states. Read the (all caps)quote from the decision above. The bold in the quote above says that with the view that the framers intended the militia to exist for defense of the union and in regulation and control by the states (under direction of congress) that the second admendment must be interpreted with that in mind.

This opinion gives congress the authority to decide who is in the militia, under what terms, the training necessary and likely even the type of weaponry they may or must own (as the court appears to have dictated).

Now you can continue to ignore half the decision and only dicuss the other half of it but until you actually read the bloody decision and understand what the justices said then you are bloody well arguing from a half baked standpoint.

 

[K1052]

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

They stand behind the same argument that nuclear weapons would have qualified as ?arms? in the 1770?s. This, while a convenient out for the uninformed masses, is completely wrong.

The ACLU lays down on this issue purely because it would not sit well with the majority of it?s supporters for them to champion the defense. To this end they ignore the historical context of the Amendment and the writings of the very people who created it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: rahvin
One question amused did you read the actual judgement I linked? Did you notice the court extensively studied what a millitia was and it actually listed the laws from about 6 states?

[edit]

THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER
"TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE
UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR
ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING
SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE
DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE
CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE
DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST
BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.

[/edit]

You would do good to actually read my post. I linked to Miller first.

And it says this:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' 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.

THIS is their accepted definition of the term "militia." Learn to comprehend what you read.

It then goes on to see what state constitutions may say. But it NEVER uses the term "state militia." Nor does it come to the conclusion that the 2nd is some absurd "collective right."

I read what you linked (although the opinion of the decision is a bit second handed and I prefer to read the actual courts opinion) and what you wrote, answer my question did you read the actual ruling that I linked?

Yes the militia is composed of the able bodied men on the country supplying their own firearms, BUT the militia exists for protection of the union AND is regulated and controlled by the states. Read the (all caps)quote from the decision above. The bold in the quote above says that with the view that the framers intended the militia to exist for defense of the union and in regulation and control by the states (under direction of congress) that the second admendment must be interpreted with that in mind.

This opinion gives congress the authority to decide who is in the militia, under what terms, the training necessary and likely even the type of weaponry they may or must own (as the court appears to have dictated).

Now you can continue to ignore half the decision and only dicuss the other half of it but until you actually read the bloody decision and understand what the justices said then you are bloody well arguing from a half baked standpoint.

The only half baked argument is yours and the ACLU's. While the militia is "regulated" the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. The militia, while made up of every able bodied man with arms is NOT the arms themselves. Furthermore, the militia is NOT the National Guard, nor any "state militia." Nor does the second amendment restrict the right to bear arms only to those deemed in the militia. It is a right for "the people." Which means all individuals.

And as I have posted, the original intent of the Founding Fathers could not be more clear.