• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
If you are barred from purchasing a Remington 870, but are not barred from purchasing a coach side-by-side (examples), there is no Second Amendment infringement.

Except that the Supremes ruled, in US v Miller (see link above) that those persons reporting for the militia should have a weapon "of the type in general usage." Since the US military "type" of shotgun is a pump shotgun, it would follow that a pump shotgun would be covered under the Second Amendment.

Every adult male between 17 and 45 IS a member of the militia, so.....
 
Last edited:

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
Restricted certain firearm types, and configurations is not an infringement.

The State has the Authority to Power to restrict certain firearm types, and configurations; and it is Constitutional; it is in-line with the Second Amendment.

100% ..... wrong.
- The reason we have "commissioned" and "Non Commissioned" officers is because families used to own equipment, like ships, that could be converted to fight in battles, or have resources that contributed to the efforts of the militia and military. All others that were "hired" by the government were non-commission, and expected to bring their own small arms (but did not contribute finatially to the war effort) of a type usable in combat, or be issued one of similar style. Many times the civilian weapon were vastly superior to the issue weapons, kinda like civilians owning machine guns, and military using bolt actions (an example equivalent to the era).

- Stop apologizing and making excuses why it is OK to be oppressed - jeezuz krist.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Except that the Supremes ruled, in US v Miller (see link above) that those persons reporting for the militia should have a weapon "of the type in general usage." Since the US military "type" of shotgun is a pump shotgun, it would follow that a pump shotgun would be covered under the Second Amendment.

Every adult male between 17 and 45 IS a member of the militia, so.....

First, the Militia then (not organized), and the Militia now (organized).

I suppose, one could argue then, there is now organized Militia, the Second Amendment is outdated. Do we do away with the entirety of the the Second Amendment? Or, are the two clauses within the Second Amendment, mutually exclusive?--Is one necessary to the other?

Either, Militia is not a reference to the Corp--which is now organized--or the Militia is reference to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, sitting at home--currently--, on their couch, stuffing potato chips into their face, while watching reruns of Dukes Of Hazzard.

"Every adult male..." then, speaks nothing to every adult male, now, and their Constitutional duty to join the organized Corps.

Issue


  • What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?
Holding and Rule (Scalia)


  • The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

Second Amendment banning certain types, and configurations of firearms, as I stated, are not infringements.

The first clause of the Second Amendment is not necessarily connected to the second clause.

Please, people, I beg you: Read, read, read.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
100% ..... wrong.
- The reason we have "commissioned" and "Non Commissioned" officers is because families used to own equipment, like ships, that could be converted to fight in battles, or have resources that contributed to the efforts of the militia and military. All others that were "hired" by the government were non-commission, and expected to bring their own small arms (but did not contribute finatially to the war effort) of a type usable in combat, or be issued one of similar style. Many times the civilian weapon were vastly superior to the issue weapons, kinda like civilians owning machine guns, and military using bolt actions (an example equivalent to the era).

- Stop apologizing and making excuses why it is OK to be oppressed - jeezuz krist.

Restricting firearm types, or configurations, is not oppression.

As I stated above: The two clauses within the Second Amendment referring to Militia, and People, are not necessarily connected.

I didn't come here to piss on your party, but I disagree; and apparently, even the Conservative 5 on the Bench, agree with me; the other 4 depart even further Left.
 

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,326
Location
Roy, WA
Restricting firearm types, or configurations, is not oppression.

As I stated above: The two clauses within the Second Amendment referring to Militia, and People, are not necessarily connected.

I didn't come here to piss on your party, but I disagree; and apparently, even the Conservative 5 on the Bench, agree with me; the other 4 depart even further Left.

So you think that a judges opinion makes it so? I think it means what the people who wrote it wanted it to mean. I don't give a damn about the opinion of a judge.

Oh and the militia is made up of people. I don't know what else it could be made of so they kind of are connected by necessity.
 
Last edited:

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
Restricting firearm types, or configurations, is not oppression.

As I stated above: The two clauses within the Second Amendment referring to Militia, and People, are not necessarily connected.

I didn't come here to piss on your party, but I disagree; and apparently, even the Conservative 5 on the Bench, agree with me; the other 4 depart even further Left.

What the 5 on the Court said was that the second was not dependent on the militia, it was a personal right, but that does not negate the militia component at all.

In US v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled on a sawed off shotgun, saying that that they were not on notice that that type of weapon served a militia purpose. They did say that to be a militia weapon, a weapon had to be of the type in general usage. THIS is a Supreme Court precedent, which has been relied upon by Federal Courts since 1939. To throw it out now would be to throw out 70 some odd years of legal rulings....
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
:p

Because some want to limit rights, why not impose limits on those who can vote based on math, reading and comprehension skills because the stupid and ignorant shouldn't have access to the power of a vote, they'll be just fine with whatever privileges are left over after we piecemeal and discount their rights.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Second Amendment banning certain types, and configurations of firearms, as I stated, are not infringements.

The first clause of the Second Amendment is not necessarily connected to the second clause.

Please, people, I beg you: Read, read, read.

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


It is connected and it is an easy sentence to understand especially if you give orignal intent and definition to the words.

Regulated did not mean impose restrictions upon, it meant to make regular, function properly or to simply allow to happen

Militia by U.S. constitution is arm bearing males between 17-45, many of the states though had a broader definition that included all people

So when you look at that sentence, which is a law restricting the federal government not one granting anybody rights.

In modern terms it would be...

A very regular, well functioning body of armed people are necessary for the people in that state to remain free from overreaching Federal government and local tyranny, the easiest way to accomplish this is that the people's already existing right to keep and bear arms will not be encroached upon by the Federal Government.

Remember the Federalists papers are not the constitution, the anti Federalist are the ones that insisted upon the Bill of Rights they didn't trust and saw the bullscat centralization behind the Federalist motives.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Restricting firearm types, or configurations, is not oppression.

As I stated above: The two clauses within the Second Amendment referring to Militia, and People, are not necessarily connected.

I didn't come here to piss on your party, but I disagree; and apparently, even the Conservative 5 on the Bench, agree with me; the other 4 depart even further Left.

Bud, just exactly what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Just because the 2A has been infringed upon, unconstitutionally I might add, does not make it correct.

I do not care what some judge said either, neither the government nor the judge gave me those rights so they damn well can not take them away.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Bud, just exactly what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Just because the 2A has been infringed upon, unconstitutionally I might add, does not make it correct.

I do not care what some judge said either the neither the government nor the judge gave me those rights so they damn well can not take them away.

+1
 

FrayedString

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
132
Location
East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
Restricted certain firearm types, and configurations is not an infringement.

The State has the Authority to Power to restrict certain firearm types, and configurations; and it is Constitutional; it is in-line with the Second Amendment.



Just because the "state" violated the constitution in the past doesn't give them a free pass to continue to do so, or to violate it further. If you embezzle money from me and I don't catch you right away, that doesn't mean you get away scott-free with the crime. Once I realize it later on down the road, you get your comeuppance. IANAL, but last I checked there's no statute of limitations on violating the constitution.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

Justice Joseph Storey, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747

http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/story.htm
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
Bud, just exactly what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Just because the 2A has been infringed upon, unconstitutionally I might add, does not make it correct.

I do not care what some judge said either the neither the government nor the judge gave me those rights so they damn well can not take them away.

Yep, yep.. Right you are...
 

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Snohomish, WA, ,
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)


TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA


Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(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.

WA State RCW 38.04.030
Composition of the militia.
The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.


BarettaLady,
What part of the Federal and State law do you not understand?

We are the Militia, as codified by law. ALL of the second amendment applies today just as it did back then. Although I appreciate the definition of "regulated" as it applied back then, to say that we....the current members of the unorganized militia....are "unregulated" is ignoring the current thousands of regulations/laws that we are burdened with. I would hazard to say we are "over regulated" to put it bluntly.

For you to state that the "
The first clause of the Second Amendment is not necessarily connected to the second clause."
just shows that you either have not read the laws, or just don't understand the second amendment.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
More on regulate

More on regulated...

It could also mean removing hindrances,

regulate commerce, meant making commerce as regular and free as possible, if one state was hindering trade by another state, one of the enumerated powers of the feds were to remove that hindrance.

So a well regulated militia could be interpreted as removing hindrances or laws on a federal level that prevented them, but of course the second part of the sentence showed the easiest way , not infringe upon their already existing right to bear arms.
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
More on regulated...

It could also mean removing hindrances,

regulate commerce, meant making commerce as regular and free as possible, if one state was hindering trade by another state, one of the enumerated powers of the feds were to remove that hindrance.

So a well regulated militia could be interpreted as removing hindrances or laws on a federal level that prevented them, but of course the second part of the sentence showed the easiest way , not infringe upon their already existing right to bear arms.

Jeeze man, give it a rest. Now you're using reason and logic? What next? A Framer's view of the Second Amendment? Crazytalk... ;)
 

FrayedString

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
132
Location
East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
More on regulated...

It could also mean removing hindrances,

regulate commerce, meant making commerce as regular and free as possible, if one state was hindering trade by another state, one of the enumerated powers of the feds were to remove that hindrance.

So a well regulated militia could be interpreted as removing hindrances or laws on a federal level that prevented them, but of course the second part of the sentence showed the easiest way , not infringe upon their already existing right to bear arms.


Great point SVG. The shift in modern times towards using regulate/regulated to mean "regulations," "rules," or restrictions is the source of many of our problems today. If you read any of the material from the framers, founding fathers, and early state legislatures it becomes pretty clear that the definition they were using for regulate meant more along the lines of "to make regular" or "to operate properly." The same issue arises in the commerce clause, where congress is given the power to "regulate" commerce between foreign nations & between the states and they've used an alternate definition from the original intent to twist it into letting them do anything they want. Very depressing.
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
...The same issue arises in the commerce clause, where congress is given the power to "regulate" commerce between foreign nations & between the states and they've used an alternate definition from the original intent to twist it into letting them do anything they want. Very depressing.

Well, you can always get depressed or you can get busy. Apart from making the calls, emails and sending $ to keep the fire to these criminals in DC/OLY, you can do other things locally. Start a local (your street) Constitution group. Read it yourself and then help your neighbors get it. nncs.net has piles of resources for this and it doesn't cost much.

My son, when he was 8, said something profound, "Papa, not reading the Constitution is like playing Monopoly and trusting the Banker to tell you the right rules..."

How many of us have been trusting the "experts" to explain things to us? And assuming/hoping that they have a completely neutral take on the things in question? Better to take the time and effort and do your own research.
 

imalurker

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
29
Location
earth
Bud, just exactly what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Just because the 2A has been infringed upon, unconstitutionally I might add, does not make it correct.

I do not care what some judge said either, neither the government nor the judge gave me those rights so they damn well can not take them away.

Exactly right. That's why the founders made it clear that our rights (read that again, rights not privileges) come from our creator (who'm ever you believe that to be) because rights granted by a power higher than man cannot be revoked by man.
 
Top