Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 ... 63
Send Topic Print
Disarming USA (Read 87914 times)
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11050
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #525 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 6:29am
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:36am:
Panther wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 10:46pm:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 10:42pm:
Panther wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 10:39pm:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 10:25pm:
Mmmm a youtube video of that fat buggerwit conspiracy nutjob Alex Jones, colour me convinced of the need to have Barretts


Haaa, Haaaaa......that's the Beauty of the Second Amendment......there is no need to prove anything to anybody......the only need is want, & as long as you can pay, aren't a Felon, & aren't Certifiably Insane, your going home with a .50 cal.

"........ the right of the People to Keep & Bear Arms shall not be infringed"


No need to prove any need.  http://imgur.com/6tcmHQH.gif





If Alex Jones gets a hold of one, I'm questioning the veracity of those mental health checks.


Your opinion, my opinion................they matter not.....if he passes a background check, run for cover because like it or not he's goin' to have what he damn well wants! 

It's his AMERICAN Right!    Wink


You're a bigger nutjob then he is


Like I said before, Freedom affords us the right to express our personal opinions.

Sorry, but if you expressed 'your personal opinions' in the USA, you'd probably be called the 'nutjob', so in retrospect maybe I should be saying Thanks for your opinion of me!?    

Thanks
...

In the end they live by a different set of rules than we're forced to, so they couldn't give a hoot about how you prefer to live, because it doesn't hinder them one bit from living theirs the way they freely wish.  Wink

That's why you will never see the USA disarmed.   ...

Burns yer little @ss don't it, that you have absolutely no control over America's Freedoms & Liberties, & how they live.

Now maybe you know a little how the English must have felt in 1783 after they had their Royal @sses handed to them, & they were kicked outa America the first time (they came back for more @ss kickin' in 1812, & they where faced with the same outcome  ...  )  ...    

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:09am by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
Marla
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I really hate you

Posts: 12790
Colorado
Gender: female
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #526 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 8:20am
 
Panther wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 6:29am:
...over America's Freedoms & Liberties...



America still has those?
Back to top
 

I am a kid in the nuthouse. I am a kid in the psycho zone. Psycho Therapy I am going to burglarize your home.
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #527 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:47am
 
It doesn't really burn my ass, more amuses me that for a country that I do love, and that I think is full of fantastic people, they can really do some dumb poo.
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
MumboJumbo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1474
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #528 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:58am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 12:03am:
The military?    Roll Eyes


Yes, thank you Brian. Clearly sarcasm doesn't translate well across the internet medium.

Panther wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 10:39pm:
"........ the right of the People to Keep & Bear Arms shall not be infringed"


Ah, but you forgot the qualifying clause. Let me extract the 2nd amendment in its entirety:

Quote:
    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.


Note -- the object of the clause is "a" (singular)  "militia" that is "well regulated".

Back to top
 

See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:58pm:
Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles?
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11050
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #529 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 5:01pm
 
MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:58am:
Panther wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 10:39pm:
"........ the right of the People to Keep & Bear Arms shall not be infringed"


Ah, but you forgot the qualifying clause. Let me extract the 2nd amendment in its entirety:

Quote:
    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.


Note -- the object of the clause is "a" (singular)  "militia" that is "well regulated".




That might depend upon what Progressive American Institution you studied your American Constitutional Law, but to consider your statement(s) valid, they would find themselves to be diametrically opposed to many Federalist & Constitutional Scholars, along with many renowned historians, as well as the intent of the original Framers of the Document itself.


Quote:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

    1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

    1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

    1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

    1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

    1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



Please consider the following:

Start Quote:
"
...
End Quote:
"

Most present day readers of the US Constitution make a common mistake, they fail to understand that the Constitution, to be significant, must be defined & understood in the context that it was written  --   the original 18th Century intent of the Framers of the Document, by refraining from today's modern definitions to guide Constitutional interpretation, & rely on the definitions of the times they were written, & how the terms were used.




Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:07am by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
MumboJumbo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1474
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #530 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:13pm
 
Panther wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 5:01pm:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.


Even adopting your definition (well-regulated = calibrated correctly) doesn't avail you. Think about it. The object of the clause then becomes a (still singular) correctly-calibrated militia, functioning as expected. How can a militia be correctly-calibrated is it cannot be straightened when the sights are crooked? (So to speak). How can you ensure it functions as expected, unless you retain power to ensure such functionality?

Even that waffly copy-pasta you added concedes the point:

Quote:
Rather, the term [well regulated] meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

See? The concession's in italics. The anonymous author qualifies this by saying -- not the national government (which, I note in passing, is extraneous to the text itself). Then who can regulate it?

It is also worth noting that the author makes a leap of logic in his reasoning. I'll quote it, see if you can spot it:

Quote:
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself


The first sentence is classic statutory interpretation -- entirely correct. One must start with the words of the statute. Do you see the sleight of hand? The author actually begins his case with the "purpose" behind the amendment; which, as any lawyer will tell you, can be whatever the author darn well pleases.
Back to top
 

See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:58pm:
Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles?
 
IP Logged
 
MumboJumbo
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1474
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #531 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:15pm
 
MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:13pm:
[quote author=DreamRyderX link=1371358984/529#529 date=1435734116]
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.


Even adopting your definition (well-regulated = calibrated correctly) doesn't avail you. Think about it. The object of the clause then becomes a (still singular) correctly-calibrated militia, functioning as expected. How can a militia be correctly-calibrated is it cannot be straightened when the sights are crooked? (So to speak). How can you ensure it functions as expected, unless you retain power to ensure such functionality?

Even that waffly copy-pasta you added concedes the point:

Quote:
Rather, the term [well regulated] meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

See? The concession's in italics. The anonymous author qualifies this by saying -- not the national government (which, I note in passing, is extraneous to the text itself). Then who can regulate it?

It is also worth noting that the author makes a leap of logic in his reasoning. I'll quote it, see if you can spot it:

Quote:
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself


The first sentence is classic statutory interpretation -- entirely correct. One must start with the words of the statute. Do you see the sleight of hand? The author actually begins his case with the "purpose" behind the amendment; which, as any lawyer will tell you, can be whatever the author darn well pleases.

PS -- please don't link to to pictures of long, tortuous arguments. If you want to write words, do so with your keyboard. That's the last time I type out lengthy parts of a picture to explain something Smiley
Back to top
 

See Profile For Update wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:58pm:
Why the bugger did I get stuck on a planet chalked full of imbeciles?
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #532 - Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:55pm
 
But is it a case, that the 2nd amendment was only supposed to be in protection against government tyranny?
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11050
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #533 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:38am
 
MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:15pm:
Panther wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 5:01pm:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.


Even adopting your definition (well-regulated = calibrated correctly) doesn't avail you.


I'd like to take credit for that statement, & the text that followed, but it's not to be, for those words are & were not mine. In future I will better use the quote tag when appropriate. I'm usually pretty good at that, but lately I've been missing the usual tags.    ...




MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 7:15pm:
PS -- please don't link to to pictures of long, tortuous arguments. If you want to write words, do so with your keyboard. That's the last time I type out lengthy parts of a picture to explain something Smiley


I wish I could have entered that argument as text, but unfortunately there is a character count limitation on this BB, & unlike some I refuse to split the passage.

Availing yourself of using a google search as a tool, finding the relevant text should present itself easy.

I will only present long text in image format if need be, but in the future I will attempt to provide links & verbiage to easily point out the textual source for those not familiar with the power of Internet search engines.

Your personal arguments along with your personal opinions are fine, & encourages further discussion based specifically on the grammatical composition of the authors text & the Second Amendment's text relevant to today's English language.

Focusing on the text of the Second Amendment itself, your personal opinions are noted, but like most 'readers' of the Amendment, you fall prey to the age old fault of using today's terminology & definitions when attempting to define the Original  Framer's Intent.  You need to not only use the terms in that Amendment as they were used in the late 18th Century, but to further enlighten yourself as to their 'Intent' by reading The Federalist & other archived arguments of the day by the Framers of the Constitution.....the Founding Fathers.....where  they argued for the Amendment(s) on various occasions. It is they that best define their intent.

You should also take into account the various precedents established by the Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment right for individual citizens to keep & bear arms especially District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as various other lower court decisions related to the Amendment (which, for clarification purposes, doesn't grant any right, but merely expresses that the right exists, & predates the Constitution itself).

Here are some Supreme Court Cases to look at, & please note that they are very few. The Supreme Court does not often take up issues on the Second Amendment primarily because it isn't necessary in light of well established precedent.



United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) The Second Amendment has no purpose other than to restrict the powers of the federal government. It does not specifically grant private citizens the right to keep and bear arms because that right exists independent of the Constitution.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) An Illinois law that prohibits common citizens from forming personal military organizations, performing drills, and parading is constitutional because such a law does not limit the personal right to keep and bear arms.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The federal government and the states can limit access to all weapons that do not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) The individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fully applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In summary, I wish to acknowledge that it means little (next to nothing) what we say here regarding the American Second Amendment, or the Constitution of the United States of America for that matter.
The 'Law of the Land' lies securely in the hands of the American People & the Supreme Court. It is they that define, not us. Wink

I hope you find these little tidbits, especially Federalist 29 & 46 enlightening, & you enjoy the echos of Freedom & Liberty from within.  ...


...





Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2015 at 10:58am by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11050
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #534 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:16am
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:55pm:
But is it a case, that the 2nd amendment was only supposed to be in protection against government tyranny?



...



Thomas Jefferson,
Principal writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,
and Second President of the United States,
thought it was one of the strongest reasons.....


...



So did George Washington,
First President of the United States


...





Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:39am by Panther »  

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #535 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:37am
 
Panther wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:16am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:55pm:
But is it a case, that the 2nd amendment was only supposed to be in protection against government tyranny?


Thomas Jefferson,
Principal writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,
and Second President of the United States,
thought it was one of the strongest reasons.....


http://imgur.com/0tY4f21.jpg



So did George Washington,
First President of the United States


http://imgur.com/YXvAIdr.jpg








SO given that last one by George, does that justify citizens having nuclear weapons and tanks?
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11050
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #536 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:48am
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:37am:
Panther wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:16am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:55pm:
But is it a case, that the 2nd amendment was only supposed to be in protection against government tyranny?


Thomas Jefferson,
Principal writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,
and Second President of the United States,
thought it was one of the strongest reasons.....


http://imgur.com/0tY4f21.jpg



So did George Washington,
First President of the United States


http://imgur.com/YXvAIdr.jpg








SO given that last one by George, does that justify citizens having nuclear weapons and tanks?








...





Tanks. 

In the USA it is perfectly legal for a Citizen to own a tank in most states (subject to various road laws), but you need a Federal Permit to buy the Ammo. 

Unlike in Australia, in the USA you need not justify your desire to own, you just need a squeaky clean record, & the buckeroos! Wink

Back to top
 

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #537 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:50am
 
Panther wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:48am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:37am:
Panther wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:16am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:55pm:
But is it a case, that the 2nd amendment was only supposed to be in protection against government tyranny?


Thomas Jefferson,
Principal writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,
and Second President of the United States,
thought it was one of the strongest reasons.....


http://imgur.com/0tY4f21.jpg



So did George Washington,
First President of the United States


http://imgur.com/YXvAIdr.jpg








SO given that last one by George, does that justify citizens having nuclear weapons and tanks?



http://imgur.com/fJzxHfk.gif

Tanks, yes.  In the USA it is perfectly legal for a Citizen to own a tank in most states (subject to various laws).



I take it being that the main cannon is unfunctional.


But I suppose my question is this, given the state of the US military, how would even the current armed populace hope to succeed in overcoming a tyrannical government.
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Moderator
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17387
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #538 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 12:03pm
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:50am:
But I suppose my question is this, given the state of the US military, how would even the current armed populace hope to succeed in overcoming a tyrannical government.


The Kurdish YPG/YPJ is doing alright against a tyrannical government armed with American goodies.

The reality is gun grabbers like you are delusional and cannot contain the rising gun numbers in Australia let alone anywhere else in the world.

The gun buy back saw 640,000 guns surrendered, as of mid 2011 we had imported over 1 million guns to replace what was bought back.

Our gun numbers are the highest they have ever been while simultaneously having our lowest firearm crimes rates ever.
More legally owned guns has resulted in less gun crime in Australia.
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11050
Gender: male
Re: Disarming USA
Reply #539 - Jul 2nd, 2015 at 12:03pm
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:50am:
Panther wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:48am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:37am:
Panther wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:16am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:55pm:
But is it a case, that the 2nd amendment was only supposed to be in protection against government tyranny?


Thomas Jefferson,
Principal writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,
and Second President of the United States,
thought it was one of the strongest reasons.....


http://imgur.com/0tY4f21.jpg



So did George Washington,
First President of the United States


http://imgur.com/YXvAIdr.jpg








SO given that last one by George, does that justify citizens having nuclear weapons and tanks?



http://imgur.com/fJzxHfk.gif

Tanks, yes.  In the USA it is perfectly legal for a Citizen to own a tank in most states (subject to various laws).



I take it being that the main cannon is unfunctional.


But I suppose my question is this, given the state of the US military, how would even the current armed populace hope to succeed in overcoming a tyrannical government.


With over 100 million Gun Owners, it's very possible when you remember that each & every Military Personnel takes a sworn oath to first & foremost defend the US Constitution, the entire Constitution including the Second Amendment, (not the flag or the Country, & least of all not the Government), & they are obligated by that same oath not to obey illegal orders.

Besides, all Military Personnel are Americans too, first & foremost, & wouldn't take lightly an order to fire on their fellow Americans.

A while back I read a poll of the Military which asked if they would fire on (shoot to kill) fellow Americans, & less than 30% said they might depending on the circumstances.

I find it easy to imagine that if push came to shove more than 50% would desert & join the anti-government forces. Wink


Back to top
 

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 ... 63
Send Topic Print