Opposing Views website

imported post

I was surfing the internet today and ran across a site called opposingviews.com

I found a lot of very interesting debates on this site but one of the ones that really grabbed my attention was http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-dc-handgun-ban-have-been-overturned

Personally I feel the Supreme Court did not go far enough in their reading of the Constitutional law involved (2a) however I am happy for what they did do with the Heller decision.

I was curious how many of you were aware of this site and had read the various arguments against overturning the ban ?

imported post

I think that if the decision had gone towards interpreting a collective right via a militia, instead of a personal right to own guns, it would have gone much worse for the anti-gun crowd. If it had gone the other way, it would have likely caused a massive surge in demand & support for states to officially form their own militias, with all able bodied men & women (read current gun owners), being members.

I'd like for the state researchers to comment on my theory.

imported post

I was and am aware of the principals' positions in the debate but not of the need for predigestion by an aggregator.

I operated small nuclear power plants and am confident of my judgments in matters of risk and chemistry and physics and science and freedom. That should about cover this, another blog however specialized.

Perhaps the site would be more concise if first they verified the expertise of their members and then restricted a truly democratic poll to their experts.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Well hell, while we're beating a dead horse, let's go all the way.

Let's suppose that arms were deemed a right available to only militia members.

Let's define militia first.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

"USC §311. Militia: composition and classes 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."

That would mean that only women in the NG, or any men, healthy, age 17-45 would be allowed to have guns.

I'm sure the rampant feminist crowd would've LOVED to have that come about.

Then again, here in Virginia, there's

http://www.virginiamilitia.org/
"VA § 44-1. Composition of militia.

The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.

(1930, p. 948; 1942, p. 642; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(1); 1944, p. 24; 1958, c. 393; 1970, c. 662; 1973, c. 401; 1976, c. 399; 1979, c. 647; 1984, c. 765; 1989, c. 414.) "

Which makes it most people 16 to 55.

There. Commence with the beating.

imported post

Pardon my ignorance on the dead horse. I didn't see it lying there, I swear! I really know nothing about the controversy that surrounds the subject.

Laws defining militias could be changed, and more easily on a state level. You can bet that if Obama gets elected and votes in a communist, whoops, I mean liberal judge that offsets the 5/4 interpretation, there would be support for it, at least for those who want to keep their guns.

imported post

Perhaps the site would be more concise if first they verified the expertise ... restricted a truly democratic poll to their experts.

Click to expand...

Either we are equal or we are not.

Click to expand...

You don't say?