Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Here's a Doozie......

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    From the Newport News, Va., Daily Press

    D.C. gun ban
    September 27, 2007


    I look forward with interest to the scheduled ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the handgun ban by the District of Columbia. I believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, not what some judge thinks is desirable in the public interest. I believe that "well-regulated militia" means a local armed force with its own officers, its own meeting place and its own by-laws, not regulated by Congress or the state of Virginia.

    It is tough for me to take sides in this case, because while I am for the right of the citizen to bear arms, I do not see where the Constitution prevents the District from banning "arms."
    J. B. Lankes
    Newport News


    Bad News J.B..................your letter clearly shows you have chosen sides......





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Interesting definition of the "militia"

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason

    --

    But regardless, the 2nd Amendment says the "right of the PEOPLE," not the MILITIA!

    The FAQ portion of the DC Gun Case blog is awesome answering these kinds of things.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    "I do not see where the Constitution prevents the District from banning "arms.""

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    ^____Right there.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    This people are to be feared, not because of their stupidity, but because they might breed!

    1st: The constitution was written for "the people", not a guide for local government
    2nd:Militia's of the time were completely un-official and "well regulated" had nothing to do with the modern day context of the word "well regulated"
    3rd: How stupid can someone be to rationalize support "for the right of the citizento bear arms" in one sentence, and in the next, support outright government bans on "said right"

    Isn't it wonderful howstupidity parades as thoughtfulness?

    bayboy42 wrote:
    From the Newport News, Va., Daily Press

    D.C. gun ban
    September 27, 2007


    I look forward with interest to the scheduled ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the handgun ban by the District of Columbia. I believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, not what some judge thinks is desirable in the public interest. I believe that "well-regulated militia" means a local armed force with its own officers, its own meeting place and its own by-laws, not regulated by Congress or the state of Virginia.

    It is tough for me to take sides in this case, because while I am for the right of the citizen to bear arms, I do not see where the Constitution prevents the District from banning "arms."
    J. B. Lankes
    Newport News


    Bad News J.B..................your letter clearly shows you have chosen sides......




  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    psmartin wrote:
    How stupid can someone be to rationalize support "for the right of the citizento bear arms" in one sentence, and in the next, support outright government bans on "said right"
    From the DCGunCase.com FAQ's.

    "Legal scholars – including prominent liberals – agree that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, but it can be limited in some circumstances. Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, a former American Civil Liberties Union board member, says he “hates” guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. But he condemns “foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right…. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.""

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    . Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, a former American Civil Liberties Union board member, says he “hates” guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed.
    Hey Dershowitz, you leftist nitwit, you can't "repeal" civil rights! They are unalienable, and only partially enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Did you fall asleep in your Constitutional Law class? By the way, Alan, we can imagine how loud you'd squeal if someone seriously tried to "repeal" the rights in the first amendment!

    [Dershowitz is a good example of an otherwise intelligent human being who has become addled by his own leftist agenda. Truly pitiful.]

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    ama-gi wrote:
    . Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, a former American Civil Liberties Union board member, says he “hates” guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed.
    Hey Dershowitz, you leftist nitwit, you can't "repeal" civil rights! They are unalienable, and only partially enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Did you fall asleep in your Constitutional Law class? By the way, Alan, we can imagine how loud you'd squeal if someone seriously tried to "repeal" the rights in the first amendment!

    [Dershowitz is a good example of an otherwise intelligent human being who has become addled by his own leftist agenda. Truly pitiful.]
    Yes, and even he agrees that the 2nd amendment secures an indivudal right.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Some Historical corrections are needed to these posts:

    1) Col. George Mason's actual quote is as follows. ""Mr. Chairman—A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty." George Mason, June 16, 1788, 3 Elliot's Debates, pp. 425-426 (1836).

    2) There was never a time in Virginia's Colonial history, or until 1865, that the milita was not under government control as noted by the several Milita Acts of the Colony. "“[t]he militia embraces the whole arms bearing population” Burroughs v. Peyton, 57 Va. (16 Gratt), 470, p179, (1864). The real difference between militia and well regulated militia is governmental laws or acts that structure and ensure a well armed and trained force composed of the body of the people. See Militia Act of 1757. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 13 is a self-executing provision meaning that no legislation is needed for its enforcement. Legislation can be passed on the subject, but only if it enhances or supports the enumerated right. Hence, the goverment can compell all people to be armed, and to muster or train. Until 1865 militia service in Virginia was cumpuslory.

    The Governor of Virginia has always been the head of the militia. In Colonial Virginia each county had its own militia with the head of that county militia being the County lieutenant, but all were under the control of the Crown and the Royal Governor. In Colonial Virginia the county lieutenant was nominated by the county courts and approved by the Governor. See : http://www.virginia1774.org/GWFairfax.html and http://www.virginia1774.org/Thomas%2...%20Militia.gif

    3) The Independent Companies first started by George Mason in 1774 were a paramilitary force and not part of the Crown's Militia in violation of the military force structure of the colony. George Mason was appointed as a member of the Virginia Committee of Safety in 1775 and his job was to re-mold the whole militia. The Indpependent companies were essentailly melted back into the regular militia and became the miniute men. The minute-men were single males of the militia who volunteered for minute man service. The minute-men only lasted about a year in Virginia because the recruiting and draughting into the Continental Line destroyed their numbers and their cohesiveness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •