Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Gun control and the Constitution
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by First of Two: [QB] I wouldn't be too sure of that. Especially the counterterrorism units. "Miller was held to be an outdated opinion as long ago as the beginning of WW II." [b]Cases v United States,[/b] 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942). "Sawed-off shotguns have considerable utility as military weapons." [b]From Trenches To Squad Cars, Black, The American Rifleman,[/b] June 1982, pg. 30. Ask anyone who has ever crewed on a tank which weapon he wants when an enemy soldier pries open a hatch cover: a rifle too awkward to get into position, a pistol that has to be aimed, or a sawed-off shotgun that merely has to be pointed straight up.. What was funny was that the argument used above made a good case for legalizing civilian possession of hand grenades, since they ARE a common military tool. If that were the criteria to be judged. In fact, there exists numerous bits of military hardware that could be considered 'common.' Including so-called 'assault' weapons, full-auto weapons, rockets... Since the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to guard against the danger of an oppressive government (you know, the kind that would herd people into reservations and camps because they're Amerind or Asian, or start trying to change the Constitution on political whims), the Founders believed that the citizenry should be nearly as well-armed as the government's forces... which in this case would be the military. "The original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to have the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. [b]The History of the Second Amendment, [/b]28 Valparaiso University Law Review, 1007, 1009 (1994). I reiterate the position that the Court has been using an incorrect definition of 'militia' as well as 'regulated.' Hopefully, a future more educated Court will realize that. more info: let's consider how Congress (the people we vote in and--not frequently enough--vote out) defines "militia" in clear and immutable terms: 10 [b]U.S.C. � 311 [/b]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 female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Section 313 of Title 32 merely refers to those individuals who are already members of the National Guard. The nineteenth century Supreme Court flatly stated that, "the militia is all citizens capable of bearing arms." [b]Presser v. Illinois,[/b] 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). As for the assertion that Congress hasn't, and never will, ban the possession of firearms or of handguns... well, besides the FACT that it already HAS banned certain weapons from private ownership (see every single weapon I mentioned above) I can probably find you at least a half-dozen instances in which a bill WAS introduced with the intention of doing so, or of repealing the Second Amendment altogether. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3