The Second Amendment - a closer look

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why is it the NRA gun-nuts always seem to focus on the last part, but never on the first part? It should be plainly obvious that this allows the government to place reasonable regulations on firearms. I doubt we'll ever see a total ban on firearms (unless we repeal the 2nd amendment, but even suggesting that would be political suicide), but surely any reasonable person can see that regulation is Constitutional. Automatic weapons, machine guns, cop-killer bullets, trigger locks, registration, etc are all reasonable regulations.

So the next time you hear some gun-nut ranting about the Second Amendment, please be sure to point this out to them!

says it's a collective right by the states to have a well-regulated militia.

The closest the gun lobby's got to getting their wet dream into law is the Emerson case in the Fifth Circuit Court,. in which the most backward and out of touch court in the land shoveled a bunch of NRA horseshit into the marginalia before they concluded the Second Amendment didn't apply in the Emerson case, and took away the loony's guns.

Imagine left-wing militia groups around the country arming themselves to the teeth. Think the neocons might find it in them to take some action against them?

That's one reason I'm suspicious of these idiotic "You gotta getta gun" threads that pop up here on DU...

But I ain't holding my breath.

I am PMing YOU. LOL

Thanks in advance for the help.

"U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan today dismissed a CATO Institute-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC's ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Judge Sullivan's ruling in United States v. Parker upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976. The Violence Policy Center (VPC) had filed an amicus curie brief in the case.
In entering judgment for the District, Judge Sullivan wrote: "his Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent and the deluge of circuit case law rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia." "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403cato.htm

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

the actual quote.

And the gun nuts will flame me, but my point is always that the second amendment is more about maintaining a militia than arming yourself in case you are victimized by a criminal. Victimized by your own govt? - yes, that would fit. By a criminal? - no.

Okay now someone will pull out that quote by Jefferson - LOL.

That's never as in not ever, no where, no how....

But then they know the difference between what the Second Amendment actually says and the swill they ladle to their inbred supporters.

"arming yourself in case you are victimized by a criminal"
In fact, a goof with a popgun is 44 times more likely to perforate himself, a family member, or a friend than he is to plug a bad guy.

My dad was a history teacher and he taught us at an early age to MEMORIZE the second amendment. One of his greatest fears for our society was CCW. I am so glad he is no longer alive to see it happening in his own backyard.

the scummier it gets....

The arguments are all utterly dishonest, the movement is clearly old fashioned right wing racism hiding under a new sheet, and the figures pushing it in public are your actual scum of the earth....

I can't put this better than I did in a previous post....

Let's do a little thought exercise.

Imagine you're a stamp collector.
--But it turns out that in buying stamp albums and collectible stamps, you're supporting some of the scummiest corporations on earth.
--And suppose every stamp collector's association and group was headed by racist right wing loonies.
--And suppose every stamp collector's journal and website was filled 24/7 with right wing drivel, open bigotry and attacks on Democrats.
--And suppose the stamp collecting conventions regularly honored some of the scummiest and most corrupt politicians in the country while the stamp collecting associations funneled them money.
--And suppose there was a public health hazard associated with your stamp collecting hobby, but philatelist groups had hired a racist crackpot synonymous with academic fraud to produce a "study" "proving" otherwise.

Would an honest person rethink stamp collecting? Or would they stamp their feet and deny that any of that was true, and make absurd analogies in a desperate attempt to justify their hobby?

I gave up on the pro-gunners a few years ago when I actually did some follow up research on some 'facts' I found on several of their websites. 99% were either bullshit or impossible to verify.

My favorite is the claim that ONLY 10 kids in the ENTIRE US have been accidentally shot with guns in the last ten years. The first time I read that, about 3 years ago, there had been SIX accidental deaths of children who were shot in my community alone in the previous year. So I was going to believe that my mid sized city had SIX in one year, leaving FOUR for the entire USA in the previous TEN YEARS??

I asked a friend who works as an ER nurse in our local children's hospital about this. She said they must have six kids a MONTH who are accidentally shot come in their ER. Then she looked up the numbers. There were actually 50 the previous year. So that is only a little more than 4 a month. But still a far cry from only 10 in 10 years for the entire country.

because they don't want to acknowledge that the vast majority of shootings in this country are DELIBERATE.

By the way, the GOP Congress has forbidden the CDC and the BATF to collect or distribute gunshot figures. CDC is actually forbidden from reporting anything in any way negative about guns.

A couple years ago, a study using figures from BATF found that just 120 stores accounted for one in every seven guns used in crime in the US, that only 24 of thoise stores had ever been inspected by the BATF, and that three quarters of those inspected had been violation of the law but remained in business.

The GOP's response? They forbade the BATF from ever giving out numbers to the public again.

are forever quoting the CDC!!

The "gun rights" movement is the cutting edge of American fascism. It's ironic that they keep bringing up Hitler cause the NAZI's started as a group of gun wielding neocon thugs and German gun laws were designed to try to keep the NAZI's in check but alas the German people were conned by the NAZI's into thinking they were the good guys. Kind of like Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, John Bolton, Groover Norquist, ad nauseum today always talking about freedom and democracy but in reality debasing the Constitution. Here's an eloquent essay talking about how minorities and the poor suffer from "gun rights".

The Ethical Spectacle, April 1995, http://www.spectacle.org

Living Downstream From the NRA

The man who led the NRA to the right, to its absolutist positions on the Second Amendment and gun rights, was Harlon Carter, a former head of the U.S. Border Patrol. In 1975, testifying before Congress, Carter was asked, which was better? To have a national means of checking the backgrounds of all gun buyers, or to permit felons, drug addicts, and the mentally ill to acquire guns? Carter replied that the latter--the possession and use of weapons by the unbalanced and dangerous--was "the price we pay for freedom." (Thanks to Erik Larson, Lethal Passage (Vintage, 1994) for the quote.)

Mr. Carter: what is this "we", white man? The more I read and understand about guns, crime and liberty, the more I think that you are exercising the freedom, and I am paying the price.

Mr. Carter, you knew what it was like to squeeze a trigger and take another man's life: as a teenager, you were convicted of murder for killing another youth, a Mexican-American, whom you claimed had threatened you. The verdict was over-turned on a technicality (similar to the types of technicality Congress is attacking these days ) and the charges were never refiled. But nothing I have read indicates that you knew what it really means to be weak, powerless and a victim in this country-- a state which you can't get out of by buying a gun.

I concede that most NRA members are law-abiding, despite the presence in its management councils of killers like yourself and characters like Robert Brown, publisher of murder manuals and Soldier of Fortune Magazine (the publication where hired killers used to advertise, until the magazine got sued too many times by bereaved families of victims). I know that the feds and the BATF are overzealous and even crazed at times, trying to enforce laws that aren't quite there, and that, like the ACLU, you worry about a slippery slope . But the reason that the laws aren't quite there is because you influenced things that way, with your lobbying and campaign dollars and your political threats. No amount of your Second Amendment special pleading (what other part of the Constitution really means anything to you) obscures the fact that one group of people benefits from the guns, while another group suffers.

The real eye-opener was reading that more than 55% of the guns recovered from crime scenes in New York City, where I live, were legally purchased in the South , then trucked up here to be sold to teenagers, street gangs, and drug dealers. The minimal scheme of regulation that the NRA was so influential in architecting--the form 4473 where the purchaser is asked to declare himself a felon, drug addict, or mentally unbalanced, and which is not actually sent to any government agency; or the $35 federal dealer licenses allowing you to do business from your kitchen table and receive weapons through the mail--guarantees the flow of guns into my city and my neighborhood. Bluntly speaking, the dark side of your exercise of your liberties-- the inevitable effects of greed, selfishness and human dishonesty unfettered by any governmental oversight-- floats downstream to pollute my world.
-----------------snip-------------------------
<http://www.spectacle.org/495/guns6.html>

As do most independents and moderate Republicans--it's why the GOP has to pay lip service to gun control. Even a piece of shit like Tom Delay had to hide behind procedural bullshit whne he put assault weapons back in the stores.

A glance at any on-line gun owner forum will reveal that gun owning "liberals" or "democrats" are non-existent or too gutless to open their yaps....

member of a well-regulated militia, seems to me.

What if ... ?

Why is this Amendment so unclear? People have been arguing about this for years because of the way the sentence is written. The other Amendments are clear - but not this one.

True, the Supreme Court ruled in 1929 that people did not have a inherent right to own a gun. That it could be regulated like a drivers license.

Gun owners read it another way - with the second part of the sentence being the relevant part.

WhatI can't stand is when people, on both side, argue that the amendment is crystal clear. It's not. The sentence is poorly written. My gun nut friends INSIST it's clear that people have an unconditional right to own one, and my gun control friends INSIST it's crystal clear they do not.

The truth is, the amendment is NOT clear, and that's why we have a court system.

The sentence is constructed in the form:

X being the case, the right shall not be infringed.

Grammatically the preamble is Absolute Construction so plainly does not act as a qualifier on which persons have the right to bear arms. The usual function of Absolute Contruction is to express a rationale for what is written in the main clause.

An examination of the grammar of the Second Amendment leads to the conclusion that the preamble is not a qualifier nor a conditional, rather it is a rationale for the non-infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


Furthermore this conclusion based on the grammar of the amendment is in agreement with the earliest commentaries and court decisions.

ntxt

So it really doesn't matter much what you think about my 4th amendment rights, does it now?

"my 4th amendment rights,"
Soooooo close. Just two off.

That basically said the well-regulated militia the amendment refers to essentially meant the states' National Guard?

In any event, the so-called militias like the Michigan one pictured above, wouldn't be able to stop an invasion by foreigners, government troops swooping down on them, or even a squadron of girl scouts. You most likely would be able to capture them all with a 30 foot by 30 foot cardboard box propped up by a log with a rope tied around it so you could yank the log out when the militia went for the bait (a case of beer) in the back of the trap.

TlalocW

"the so-called militias like the Michigan one pictured above, wouldn't be able to stop an invasion by foreigners"
In fact, most of those loonies are much more interested in putting holes in their fellow Americans.

That was protecting the right of the People to free speech, seek government redress and peaceably assemble at Kent State?

The same state NG that is trained, paid and equipped by the federal government?

The same state NG that has the same chain of command that our military has all the way up to the Commander in Chief?

The same state NG that is serving in Iraq?

The same state NG that can be federalized at any time by the same Commander in Chief?

The same state NG whose armories are located on land leased or owned by the federal government?

Does any of that fit into the definition of a state Nationl Guard or Militia?

(edit to fix HTML).

This was not always the case in US history. I believe what is meant by the Founding Fathers was a form of community militias run by their respective communities, not the federal government. The National Guard of today is no such thing.

that each of the states National Guard units constitutes the militia as stated in the 2nd amendment.

Assuming a worst case scenario where the federal government did decide to assume full powers and
ignore the Constitution of the United States, the state National Guard would be the 1st ones called up to enforce and implement the rule of a rogue or out of control Executive branch and/or Congress.

The current status of our National Guard units would have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

From Wikipedia.

"Calling themselves Regulators, men from all over the western and central parts of the state began to agitate for change. Initial disturbances were mostly peaceful and centered primarily on freeing incarcerated farmers from debtor's prisons. In the late summer of 1786 the conflict escalated when armed Regulators shut down debtor courts in Northampton, Worcester, Concord, and elsewhere. After the passage of the Riot Act, the Regulators seized arms from the Springfield Armory. Militia groups called out to fight the Regulators often switched sides.

The rebellion eventually gelled into an organized army, led by one Daniel Shays, a farmer from East Pelham and a former captain in the American Revolutionary War. Another leader, Luke Day, was the son of a wealthy family in West Springfield. While the Regulators are usually thought of as a rabble of poor farmers, many of them were members of prominent local families, including the Dickensons of Amherst. In addition, many of the rebels were former soldiers who fought in the American Revolution.

The lack of a standing army under the government of the time (set up by the Articles of Confederation) prevented Congress from sending Federal forces. Due to a lack of funds and some empathy for the Regulators, the Massachusetts legislature was unwilling to approve a raising of the militia. Desperate for a solution, Governor James Bowdoin and a number of Boston-area bankers then assembled 4,400 privately-paid mercenaries (who were later legitimized as a militia) under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln to quell what was becoming an increasingly effective rebellion. When the Regulators heard about the mercenary army, they planned to return to the federal arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts for more weapons. A column of rebels led by Luke Day was delayed by heavy snows, but were repulsed by forces under Gen. William Shepard, allowing Lincoln's as-yet illegitimate army to seize the armory's weapons first. When the other column of Regulators arrived, an extended conflict between the rebels (of some 2000 men) and the Lincoln's army (of around 4,400 men) followed. In the end, this "Battle of Springfield" resulted in a rebel defeat, although only four rebels were actually killed."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion>

The part I like is how they took mercenaries and "legitimized" them as militia. Early version of Blackwater I presume.

The fact that they called these mercenaries a "militia" was because they realized the definition of militia at the time meant that militias would naturally be hard to control from some central authority. If you called them regular troops or mercenaries, you would've probably seen more opposition from those who still remember Hessian mercenaries used by the British Army as well as British troops themselves.

Funny how it was bankers who raised this army. Probably because they were the ones that owned the debt these farmers were objecting to. Gotta love greed and capitalism and all that.

I would've revolted if faced with debtor prisons run by bankers.

"Does any of that fit into the definition of a state Nationl Guard or Militia?"
In a word, yes.

get an alarm. Call a cop.

mess and are under no obligation to help your ass out of the fire.

Whata bunch of rightwing hooey. Smells like the feces neil bortz throws .

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.

"In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime... ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "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...urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years."
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second>

Or does it still stand as law?

The Bill of Rights intent was and is to RESTRICT the powers of the federal government over the STATES and the PEOPLE.

If you thus understand that, it is clear that the regulation of the militia was intended to RESTRICT the powers of the FEDERAL government wrt firearm possession.

Thus it means the federal government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. The states can howerver regulate those right via regulation of the state militia.

I won't point out the gutter speak and personal attack mode of using the phrases like "gun nuts."

"Thus it means the federal government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms."
And yet the NRA has never gone to court to sue on Second Amendment grounds. What does it say when somebody won't put their money where their mouth is?

By the way, what happened when the loonies at the CATO institute tried to overturn DC's gun laws on Second Amendment Grounds? Here's a hint...they lost.

From Websters New World dictionary (college, 4th edition).

Regu-late...

1: to control, direct, or govern according to a rule, principle, or system.

2: to adjust to a particular standard, rate, degree, amount, etc.

3: to adjust so as to make operate accurately.

4: to make uniform, methodical, orderly.

Seems like #4 would be the more fitting definition, especially when taken in the context of a well regulated militia.

Your definition (at least the way you wish to define it), is contradictory to the word infringed... as in shall not be infringed.

In-fringe...

to break off, break, impair, fail to observe the terms of; violate.

Trespass-- infringe on(or upon), to break in on; enroach or trespass on (to infringe on their right to privacy).

"Seems like #4 would be the more fitting definition"
Not even close to true.

"Your definition (at least the way you wish to define it), is contradictory to the word infringed"
Not even close to true, as the courts have ruled again and again and again and again.....

Such a system is decentralized but regimented and regulated. It's decentralized manner makes it ideal for defensive combat, not offensive power projection like with our model here in the US.

Community militias fell under the control not of the state or the federal government but under their respective community governments. At least, that was what things used to be in the US. After the Revolution, a more centralized system was instituted.

The system we have today is highly centralized. It lends itself easily to central control, and it's better suited for power projection overseas compared to a network of community militias. Our model resembles the one used by Prussia, not Switzerland.

"Calling themselves Regulators, men from all over the western and central parts of the state began to agitate for change. Initial disturbances were mostly peaceful and centered primarily on freeing incarcerated farmers from debtor's prisons. In the late summer of 1786 the conflict escalated when armed Regulators shut down debtor courts in Northampton, Worcester, Concord, and elsewhere. After the passage of the Riot Act, the Regulators seized arms from the Springfield Armory. Militia groups called out to fight the Regulators often switched sides.

The rebellion eventually gelled into an organized army, led by one Daniel Shays, a farmer from East Pelham and a former captain in the American Revolutionary War. Another leader, Luke Day, was the son of a wealthy family in West Springfield. While the Regulators are usually thought of as a rabble of poor farmers, many of them were members of prominent local families, including the Dickensons of Amherst. In addition, many of the rebels were former soldiers who fought in the American Revolution.

The lack of a standing army under the government of the time (set up by the Articles of Confederation) prevented Congress from sending Federal forces. Due to a lack of funds and some empathy for the Regulators, the Massachusetts legislature was unwilling to approve a raising of the militia. Desperate for a solution, Governor James Bowdoin and a number of Boston-area bankers then assembled 4,400 privately-paid mercenaries (who were later legitimized as a militia) under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln to quell what was becoming an increasingly effective rebellion. When the Regulators heard about the mercenary army, they planned to return to the federal arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts for more weapons. A column of rebels led by Luke Day was delayed by heavy snows, but were repulsed by forces under Gen. William Shepard, allowing Lincoln's as-yet illegitimate army to seize the armory's weapons first. When the other column of Regulators arrived, an extended conflict between the rebels (of some 2000 men) and the Lincoln's army (of around 4,400 men) followed. In the end, this "Battle of Springfield" resulted in a rebel defeat, although only four rebels were actually killed."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays\'_Rebellion >

The part I like is how they took mercenaries and "legitimized" them as militia. Early version of Blackwater I presume.

To paraphrase:

It is necessary to the security of a free state to regulate the military, thus the right of the the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Or put another way, an out of control military is a threat to a free state. To maintain civilian control of the military, and their mercenary contractors, the people shall be armed.

What it means is, the federal government may not make any law banning or regulating the peoples right to own and bear arms in any way. Seems clear to me.

The local and state may regulate arms, but not the feds. Of course, recently all sorts of well intentioned people think its the federal governments obligation to deal with crime, it all its forms. My answer would be, if they are so concerned, why not have the local and state government do something. Don't people think the states have the primary responsibility to deal with crime within their jurisdiction.

How did we come to think it's the feds job to deal with crime? Must be Eliot Ness and his Untouchables on TV that make people think the Feds are responsible. Never underestimate the power of movies as propaganda. That J. Edgard was pretty sneeky. A power grubbing prick if I ever saw one.

I betcha they never think about that either. I wish people would read their Constitution instead of just going along with what someone else says automatically.

we've got more important things to worry about.

It's not caring about this issue that got us into these troubles. This issue is the cutting edge of human rights. A telltale sign that there was dangerous class schism in New Orleans was the high perennial murder rate, often the highest in the nation. Much of the reason we're in Iraq is the cowboy mentality that all things can be fixed with the latest gun. Every year and year out, 30,000 dead, over 100,000 wounded and over $100billion in costs mostly born by cities, urban counties and states.

Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment (45 Emory L.J. 1139-1259 (1996)).

The consensus in the peer-reviewed legal literature appears to be that the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect an individual right, and if anything that consensus is stronger now than it was in 1996.

And the Emory Law Jounrnal is no more peer-reviewed than it is mint-flavored.....

Meanwhile, Don Kates is a paid shill for the gun industry....

Bill Gates can afford to buy a nuclear ballistic missile submarine from General Dynamics.

Does anybody think we should allow this? I don't.

According to the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment, there would be nothing wrong with it..

Note that the Second Amendment says the right to bear arms. It doesn't specifically limit "arms" to meaning "guns".

Doug D.

baffling as the collective rights advocates claim, nor was its meaning lost of the Supreme Court in US v. Miller.

The Supreme Court reviewed the historical record and concluded that the preamble was a declaration of the commonly held view that: “…adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”

The court further concluded 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.”

One of the sources provided by the Miller Court is especially helpful in understanding the preamble, and the second amendment as a whole:

”The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared:

‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,... And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.’ Blackstone”
{end of excerpt} (my emphasis in bold)



Note the similarities between the preamble of the Second amendment and .the preamble to the 1785 Virginia act cited in US v. Miller(above):

”The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.”

Preamble (for lack of a better word) to Second Amendment:

”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...”


The phrase "A well regulated militia" when read in the proper historical context as provided in US v. Miller has the same meaning as the phrase "citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty".

The phrase "the defense and safety of the commonwealth" is similar in meaning to the phrase "security of a free state".

The relationship “ A is necessary to B “ is the same as the relationship “B depends on A”.

Also note who was to “keep” arms in the Supreme Court’s definition of the militia and in the various militia acts cited -including the Virginia Miliita act 1785. which is quoted above.

It's ONE sentence....

and we still have liberals insisting that the government should be the only one who has arms.

When the brown shirts start taking people away in the middle of the night (holding up 'evidence' acquired form some NSA warentless search that no one can see because of "national security reasons") I guess we'll be better off that Bush's thugs have automatic rifles and the people have bolt action .22's.

then the fascist behind him will shoot me and that'll be that. Since the fascists control the news media nobody will hear about it, or I'll be played up as a anti-social militia member who wanted to overthrow the government and was a danger to myself and my neighbors. They'll lay out my firearms and ammunition on a table to show what a gun-nut I am, and mis-characterize my firearms as being military style rifles even though there are nothing of the sort. I'll quickly be forgotten as another liberal rabble rouser who was against the gub'mint, George Bush, the GOP, and probably be called a terrorist supporter to boot. My posts on "Anti-American" web sites such as Democratic Underground will be quoted in print so people can read for themselves how I spoke out against the Bush/Corporatist regime. They can read how I called them fascists -- among other things -- proving with my own words I was a terrorist who the world is better off without.

They steal elections
They control the media
They own the militia (since the 2nd amendment is just a collective right of the states, and the 'militia' is now the National Guard and Reserve which can be federalized by the President basically by the stroke of a pen)
Their army is getting lots of good experience fighting a low intensity insurgency in Iraq.
They spy on us without warrants or even probable cause
They ignore the Constitution
They let thousands die after Katrina by denying them food, water, other aid, and refused to rescue others who could of been saved.

If they come for us we can just stage a sit-in and it'll be like Timeimen square where that man stood in front of the tank and it stopped.

Of course it wont be like the part we didn't see on TV where anywhere between 500-7000 were gunned down by the Chinese Army.


Don't prepare for the unthinkable end game folks. If it ever gets to that point, just submit quietly and go to room 101.

You don't need arms. They're not ever going to come for us. They'll only go "so far" then stop. Turn in your weapons, America will be safer for it.

There are five lights.


edit: typos.

When does it kick in? Uber fascist John AssKKKrack protected the 2nd amendment like it was the holy grail and used the rest of the Bill of Rights to wipe his ass. My take is that the 2nd amendment has always protected the status quo and why should it do anything different today. It's no accident that the PuKKKes love the 2nd amendment as it's no threat at all to them. BTW, you probably won't kill a fascist, just a Blackwater employee.

We're not there yet. God willing we never will be there. It's the 'getting dragged out of your house at gunpoint' option.

They have secret overseas prisons and interment camps. Right now their just for brown skinned people. Wait till they turn into places to put political dissidents, regardless of skin color.

Ashcroft et al can afford to pay lip service to the 2nd amendment (even though the Bush admin has given orders to the BATF to tighten import restrictions, among other things) because the people with the arms so far agree with him.

Ronald Regan was such a pro-2nd amendment guy till the Black Panthers starting marching on the California state house with rifles and shotguns. Then he couldn't trip over himself fast enough to sign the strictest gun control laws in the nation at that the time.

Fascists are AFRAID of a well armed left. But we do all the work of disarming ourself without any of their help.

And, you think blackwater mercenaries following out orders to kill or capture American citizens on American soil aren't fascists?

just like the fundys cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to follow.

Now, why can't I own Canadians?

http://www.blueflamepolitix.org/humor/WhyCantIOwnACanadian.htm

confronted by gun owners....

It’ll be -- It’ll be the -- the ballot or it’ll be the bullet. It’ll be liberty or it’ll be death. And if you’re not ready to pay that price don’t use the word freedom in your vocabulary. -- Malcolm X

How are we doing so far with the ballots?

Oh yeah...some asswipe shot him.

been stabbed or clubbed to death by those same asswhipes. Or maybe poisoned or strangled or just plain old beaten to death with hands and feet.

But hey, any rationale, no matter how desperate, for your crappy little hobby.....

:popcorn:

i proclaim myself a "militia of one".
if there are any other gun owning democratic types in my area they are welcome to join me for a day at the range.

;)

Or would it mean properly armed?



The preamble to the 1785 Virginia militia act cited in US v. Miller means the same as the first part of the second amendment:

”The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared:

‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years...And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.’ Blackstone”
{end of excerpt} (my emphasis)



Note the similarities:

”The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens
properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.”


”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...”


The phrase "A well regulated militia" when read in the proper historical context as provided in US v. Miller has the same meaning as the phrase "citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty".

The phrase "the defense and safety of the commonwealth" is similar in meaning to the phrase "security of a free state".

The relationship “ A is necessary to B “ is the same as the relationship “B depends on A”.

Also note who was to “keep” arms in the Supreme Court’s definition of the militia and in the various militia acts cited -including the Virginia Miliita act 1785. which is quoted above.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

August 24, 2004

Big Fucking Deal....