Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/20/06 06:03 PM, Begoner wrote:

Yes. To ensure that the federal government did not infringe upon the right of the citizens to keep and be...Almost had me there. To be part of organized, state run militias (subject to the final authority of the feds, of course)

The point of it was to ensure that the federal government does not usurp the power of state governments....

Point being: these were STATE militias (not unlike the national guard).

The federal government was never supposed to have any control whatsoever over the state militias.

School integrations of the 50s beg to differ.

Not a problem, Steel. But this is what they say: "The minimum age for participation in the UNORGANIZED militia..."

Not the organized (state run) militia of the Bill of Rights...and they know it.

Oh, and they're not THAT bad. "THE ACLU PAGE REGARDING THE PATRIOT ACT AND PATRIOT ACT II" THEY LINK THE ACLU. However, they do support assault weapons usage...

And they state "There are, however, individuals or groups that claim to be militias that say they are of a superior race fighting the "great race war...to annihilate the mud people". These individuals or groups are not militias - they are racists."

Not so bad: "In addition, the Geneva Convention and other laws require that all militias must have uniforms with insignia to designate them as such." At least they have some knowledge of international law.

They could be worse.

The part about having a "well regulated malitia" is called a justification clause. A justicication clauses also appear ins tate constition and they cover essintial librities suach as the right to trial, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the list goes on. To quote Eugene Volokf, Prof. Law from UCLA "Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis."

"We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendemt was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a stading army, or applies only to members of a select mailitia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th cour of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

To date out of all the court ruling on the 2nd amendment 97% of courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, while 3% of rulings have declared it a collective right.

Your point about a well regulater malitia is moot.

Well, I guess that you make sense. But I don't think any court would argue about the government's right, nay, duty, to regulate firearms.

At 3/20/06 07:46 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Well, I guess that you make sense. But I don't think any court would argue about the government's right, nay, duty, to regulate firearms.

Constitutional scholars have interpreted the term "The people" in every other Amendment to the Constitution as a reference to individual rights. Gun control advocates want people to believe that the term "the people" somehow refers to a collective right to own firearms in defense of an invading army. That makes about as much sense as a square bowling ball.

Also, during the time that the Founding Fathers wrote it, England HAD stationed standing armies before the Revolutionary War took place......... The last thing they wanted was for the Government to take away the peoples' firearms. They sure as Hell didn't believe that Government had a right or even a duty to regulate firearms! ........

The nation was new, the Founding Father's realized that the Bill of Rights would be worthless, without the 2nd Amendment! They feared that someday, the Government would become corrupt (Just like the one in England) and trample all over everyone's rights. How do you stop that from happening? You give the Constitution some teeth. Namely the 2nd Amendment. It's easy as Hell for the Government to take away your rights if there's no way for you to stop them! ......... Go ahead, TRY arguing that you have freedom of speech; when you have no way to actually defend that freedom!

At 3/21/06 12:56 AM, Monocrom wrote:

They sure as Hell didn't believe that Government had a right or even a duty to regulate firearms! ........

The supreme court has ruled that the government, in the interest of the greater good, regulate firearms.

At 3/21/06 04:18 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/21/06 12:56 AM, Monocrom wrote:

They sure as Hell didn't believe that Government had a right or even a duty to regulate firearms! ........

The supreme court has ruled that the government, in the interest of the greater good, regulate firearms.

Yes........ the very thing that the Founding Fathers feared and did NOT want to happen! Open a history book. Just because the Supreme Court says something is legal, that doesn't make it right. Hell, in their time, the English courts said that taxation without representation was perfectly legal. If everyone went along with that B.S., all the public schools in America would be flying the Union Jack instead of the Stars & Stripes!

I have been exposed to guns since I was 4. The first gun I shot was a 22 at age 5. Guns are great if handled correctly. All the bad stuff you hear about guns are from the inner city kids who are dumb when they handle guns. Most of those guns are bought illegal and used to kill other idiots. But if guns are used right they can save lives. Read the North American Rifleman Magizine and see. There are at least 10 stories where guns have saved inocent people.

And over 30,000 stories each year. 30,000 lives ended by guns used for violent ends.

At 3/22/06 04:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: And over 30,000 stories each year. 30,000 lives ended by guns used for violent ends.

So maybe it's not gun control we should be worrying about, rather gun awareness. Why not just make widespread avaliability of learning how to safely use and/or handle guns instead of just take them all away?

At 3/22/06 04:58 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: And over 30,000 stories each year. 30,000 lives ended by guns used for violent ends.

Do you have anything to back this up? Because I'm pretty sure the total amount of murders last year was around 15,000; total, not just from guns. I'm pretty sure that the FBI didn't miss half the murders that happened last year.

16,137 murders " in 2004. Ok, but what I mean is that "2002, 30,242 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,829
(39%) of those were murdered; 17,108 (57%) were suicides; 762 (3%) were accidents;
and in 243 (1%) the intent was unknown.

At 3/22/06 05:41 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: 16,137 murders " in 2004. Ok, but what I mean is that "2002, 30,242 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,829
(39%) of those were murdered; 17,108 (57%) were suicides; 762 (3%) were accidents;
and in 243 (1%) the intent was unknown.

And that's exactly why we need gun awareness. To help prevent this from happening. Becuase as much as you don't like it, guns are here to stay (it's my fucking right, and I will exercise it).