This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

[jocal505]

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.
Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

The Cuntfinder changed the words of my quote. I didn't say those words. I spoke of the human motivation behind the gun.

Here is what I wrote (see Post 574).

. Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

No I didn't change anything at all. I quoted you verbatim. Are you resorting to lying now, you POS?
Edit: I want and rechecked your post and you DID CHANGE IT!! You motherfucking coward POS cunt. You are not a man if you can't even own your words. You could have easily said that's wasn't what you meant and given your contorted writing style, no one would have questioned that. But to go back and change it after you'd been caught and then lie about it??? WTFF????

I didn't even notice your post for a day or so. Anything I edit is for clarity, or to better express my understanding of these things.

I edit stuff (pretty frequently, too) to be as clear as possible, and to express my genuine POV.

But now that you mention it, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine agree with the idea that guns participate in violence. They define the gun as an AGENT in each act of gun violence. And the AMA has recently stated guns have brought an epidemic of gun violence.

No offense, but mosquitoes once came into the attention of science, as agents of epidemic malaria. Many mosquitoes got sprayed with deadly chemicals, and their swamps got drained. That malaria was contained through science. Damage control can be brought to the gun violence situation through similar science. That's how civilized nations roll.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...

And this is what is so alarming about Tom's forty days and forty nights of extended race-baiting: guns actually have a history of the suppression of civil rights.

Sorry Folks, But Gun Rights And Civil Rights Don’t Mean The Same Thing.

I’m happy that the NRA has decided to create greater awareness about the struggle for civil rights and the value that black Americans placed on arming and defending themselves during that time. But when the NRA uses the history of armed resistance to racism to justify arming the average American as a response to everyday crime, they are moving from past history to present-day advocacy, two positions that have nothing to do with each other at all.

The Klan wasn’t just someone who would break into your house or mug you in the street. It was, in many areas of the South, an organized vigilante movement whose mission was to recreate the racist political and social structure that existed before the Civil War. That blacks chose to arm themselves in the face of political terrorism directed only at them should never be confused with decisions that people make today about whether personal ownership of guns will protect them from crime.

The NRA now refers to itself as America’s “longest-standing civil rights organization” and by that I guess they mean that somehow the 2nd Amendment ranks above all other Constitutional rights. But the truth is that the NRA paid lip service at best to concerns about threats to the 2nd Amendment until Harlon Carter took over the leadership in 1977 and began to play the political advocacy game in a much more aggressive way.

By the time the NRA discovered that gun ownership was not just a Constitutional but also a civil right, black Americans had been fighting and winning their civil rights for over twenty years.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

If you want to discuss the racist roots of gun control, or even the current application of racist policies like stop and frisk in gun control, this is a better thread for it.

It has the evidence you want to ignore about our ugly history of disarming minorities to better control them.

Just because self-defense is a basic civil right does not mean it ranks above all other constitutional rights. I think the first is our most important amendment, but wouldn't want to be without others. Including the second.

They got the dates wrong in your excerpt above. The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

 

[jocal505]

...

And this is what is so alarming about Tom's forty days and forty nights of extended race-baiting: guns actually have a history of the suppression of civil rights.

Sorry Folks, But Gun Rights And Civil Rights Don’t Mean The Same Thing.

I’m happy that the NRA has decided to create greater awareness about the struggle for civil rights and the value that black Americans placed on arming and defending themselves during that time. But when the NRA uses the history of armed resistance to racism to justify arming the average American as a response to everyday crime, they are moving from past history to present-day advocacy, two positions that have nothing to do with each other at all.

The Klan wasn’t just someone who would break into your house or mug you in the street. It was, in many areas of the South, an organized vigilante movement whose mission was to recreate the racist political and social structure that existed before the Civil War. That blacks chose to arm themselves in the face of political terrorism directed only at them should never be confused with decisions that people make today about whether personal ownership of guns will protect them from crime.

The NRA now refers to itself as America’s “longest-standing civil rights organization” and by that I guess they mean that somehow the 2nd Amendment ranks above all other Constitutional rights. But the truth is that the NRA paid lip service at best to concerns about threats to the 2nd Amendment until Harlon Carter took over the leadership in 1977 and began to play the political advocacy game in a much more aggressive way.

By the time the NRA discovered that gun ownership was not just a Constitutional but also a civil right, black Americans had been fighting and winning their civil rights for over twenty years.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

If you want to discuss the racist roots of gun control, or even the current application of racist policies like stop and frisk in gun control, this is a better thread for it.

It has the evidence you want to ignore Why would I care to ignore it? It is one of the more fucked attributes about guns in the USA, and what they stand for. But your idea of "discussion" is to point the finger of racism at those who don't support your own policies. (The behavior does not flatter you.) It's a distasteful topic if handled intelligently...which you never do, Tom.

about our ugly history of disarming minorities to better control them.

Just because self-defense is a basic civil right does not mean it ranks above all other constitutional rights. I think the first is our most important amendment, but wouldn't want to be without others. Including the second.

They got the dates wrong in your excerpt above. The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, WRONG WRONG WRONG. SEE BOLDED DATES BELOW: This was a conspiracy, which was well along by the time of the FOPA of '86. when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not. They LOVED it.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. You are a liar. I'll document your lies in the bolded timeframe in the next post. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

I de-bunked this before. Thanks for the chance to do it again.

During the time you mention, some of the NRA were playing cagey, counting SC justices waiting for better timing. The others were chomping at the bit to take their changes with the Supreme court. ALL were up for the challenge.

What happened was FOPA (which was a huge effort), then Ashcroft. When he came on board in 2001, the DOJ and challenged the Emerson decision by appeal. Instead of following the law as written at the time, Ashcroft let the Emerson appeal drop. The year was around 2002, as noted by the correspondence below..

Ashcroft's opinion trumps DOJ's appeal of Emerson,

Shot Full of Holes

Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment

Conclusion

Not only has the source material in Attorney General Ashcroft's letter been manipulated and taken out of context, ironically, much of it appears to have been lifted wholesale from the historical discussion in the very Emerson decision that the Justice Department has appealed.76

Most of the historical quotes that Ashcroft uses in his letter are identical to those that the judge in Emerson relied on to craft his expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Attorney General of the United States is laying out what he describes as his own personal understanding of the Second Amendment, and he does this through an appeal to materials used in a court decision which rules against the Department of Justice's official position on the Second Amendment, and which the Department has appealed.

In other words, Attorney General Ashcroft is presenting in an official letter his personal point of view, which directly conflicts with the duties of his official capacity as Attorney General, by borrowing liberally from a decision he is supposed to be working to have overturned.

It says a great deal about both the trial court's decision in Emerson and the Ashcroft letter that both misrepresent the historical evidence and either omit or mischaracterize existing precedents. Such a situation is, at best, confusing and, at worst, destructive to the Department's litigating position. His letter has served as a rallying cry for the National Rifle Association and a warning sign for gun control advocates. In the meantime, the Justice Department's reputation is being tarnished. Most importantly, if brought to their natural conclusion, Attorney General Ashcroft's efforts to change the Department's position on the Second Amendment will have dangerous real-world implications that will be measured in increased death and injury from firearms.

Go to Appendix A

Back to Table of Contents

Pasted from <http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashconc.htm>

 

[jocal505]

This is not a complete list, by any means. But these significant developments in the gun culture show that Tom's history is lies.

This "message" is shameless bullshit.

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

1965 [SIZE=10.5pt]The official position of the DOJ on the Second Amendment:[/SIZE]

Statement of Attorney General Katzenbach:

"With respect to the second amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear that the amendment did not guarantee to any individuals the right to bear arms."

1973

DOJ Letter to George Bush,

Chairman, Republican National Committee (July 19, 1973)

The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun" [and] [there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment] . . . . Courts "have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . . . . In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.

Letter from Mary C. Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,

Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ

1974 A 23-year-old Ohio State graduate from AZ, David Hardy, wrote the first thesis suggesting historic claims to individual gun rights.

1977Harlon Carter, with Charlton Heston and SAF figures, hijacked the NRA at their annual convention in Cincinatti. Their acceptance speeches vowed to roll back, and defeat, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

1986[SIZE=10.5pt] The Firearm Owners Protection Act (McLure Volkmer) weakened the GCA of '68, and limited ATF abilities.[/SIZE]

Summary, by David Hardy: The 1986 Amendments to the Gun Control Act were the result of a nearly-unparalleled legislative battle. A thorough understanding of the amendments is critical to a comprehension of Federal firearms laws as they now exist, since they effectively overruled decades of caselaw which construed the 1968 Act. Among the changes were elevations of the intent which must be proven to establish a violation (pp. 646 ff.), a narrowed definition of who must obtain a dealer's license (pp. 628 ff.), restrictions on unreasonable search, seizure, and forfeiture (pp. 653 ff.), and provisions for recovery of attorney's fees in civil and even criminal cases (pp. 662 ff.)

.http://www.guncite.c.../hardfopa.html>

1995[SIZE=10.5pt] Republicans and NRA Try to Revive Felons' “Relief” Program[/SIZE]

1996 [SIZE=10.5pt]NRA Launches Second Attempt to Resuscitate Criminal “Relief” Program[/SIZE]

2000[SIZE=16pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]The official position of DOJ on the Second Amendment:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Text of Solicitor General Waxman's letter[/SIZE][SIZE=16pt], [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]U.S. Department of Justice[/SIZE]

Office of the Solicitor General

Solicitor General

Washington, D.C. 20530

August 22, 2000 (Edit. This timeframe is just before Bush's election)

Dear Mr. (Name Deleted):

Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson. Your letter states that the attorney indicated that the United States believes that it could "take guns away from the public," and "restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people." You ask whether the response of the attorney for the United States accurately reflects the position of the Department of Justice and whether it is indeed the government's position "that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right."

I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice). I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v. Emerson, Assistant United States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia.

(Snipped: ten court cases, beginning with Miller)

2001

(Note: Ashcroft became Bush's AG in Jan. 2001. The Emerson Decision had been appealed by the DOJ as he took sworn office to uphold existing laws.)

Text of Ashcroft letter to Jon Baker, May 17,2001

(...) "While some have argued the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.

(…)Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view comports with all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. (Fed. 46 and 29) Note: neither touches on individual gun rights, as claimed

(…)As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the FOPA.

2003

Tiahart Amendments restricted valuable ATF trace information.

• The Tiahrt Amendment restricts access of state and local law enforcement authority to gun trace data, hindering municipal police departments' ability to track down sellers of illegal guns, to investigate gun trafficking patterns, and to make connections between individual gun-related crimes.[14] Mayor Bloomberg has called the Amendment "an insult to the thousands of police officers that face the threat of illegal guns."[15][16]
  
• The Tiahrt Amendment requires that NICS background check records be destroyed within 24 hours, and this makes it harder for law enforcement authorities to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records. It also makes it more difficult to identify and track down straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn't be able to pass a background check, or prohibited purchasers who buy firearms themselves due to errors in the background check process.[16]
  
• The Tiahrt Amendment denies the ATF the authority to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns. Under current rules, the ATF can conduct a warrantless search of any licensed gun dealer once per year.[17]
  

2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

In historic legislation, the gun lobby was exempted from broad product liability. The NRA had lobbied heavily for the bill, after two previous failures to get it passed.

[SIZE=9pt]NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified at the Senate hearing…[/SIZE]

Tom tells us the NRA was indifferent towards the second amendment until Heller? I detect a huge credibility problem in any such story. Heller was the natural culmination of the forty- year effort of the GOA's Larry Pratt, basically. The recorded words of Harlon Carter on the night of the NRA's 1977 Cincinatti Revolution called for the decimation of the GCA '68.

Heller was the achievement of that mid-seventies conspiracy, not some new NRA courtship with the second amendment.

I'm not sure what the angle is, but Tom's history is quite dishonest, coming from someone who knows this topic well.

 

[nannygovtsucks]

Nobody cares what you think about our rights, Jerkofff.

Here's why:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasnt Jeffersons proposal of No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

 

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

 

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselvesand include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

 

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

 

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

 

"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."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

 

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

 

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

 

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

 

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[Rockdog]

Apparently you don't because what Australia did would not work for Americans. Come up with something that would. I bet you can't.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

This is not a complete list, by any means. But these significant developments in the gun culture show that Tom's history is lies.

This "message" is shameless bullshit.

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

The NRA most definitely did NOT like it. They tried to scuttle the case in a couple of different ways before jumping on board at the end.

...

I suppose I should have provided a citation. American Bar Association

...Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”

Levy, who is bankrolling and pushing Heller to the Supreme Court out of his own pocket and on his own time, says the NRA first sent two lawyers to try to dissuade him from filing the case. After that failed, Levy says the NRA tried to hijack the case by filing a competing case, then trying to consolidate the two.

To boot, Levy says, the NRA supports congressional legislation to repeal the gun ban, which could render Heller moot. He also wonders why the NRA waited more than 25 years to challenge the 1976 D.C. ordinance.

...

How in the heck did Justice Taney get this idea years before there was an evil, racist NRA to spread it?

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

[jocal505]

1965 [SIZE=10.5pt]The official position of the DOJ on the Second Amendment:[/SIZE]

2001

(Note: Ashcroft became Bush's AG in Jan. 2001. The Emerson Decision had been appealed by the DOJ as he took sworn office to uphold existing laws.)

Text of Ashcroft letter to Jon Baker, May 17,2001

(...) "While some have argued the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise.

(…)Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view comports with all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. (Fed. 46 and 29) Note: neither touches on individual gun rights, as claimed

First of all jo-fuck-all, the "offical position of the DOJ doesn't count for diddly squat.

Secondly you are lying again. Federalist 46 and 29 specifically state it is an individual rights. Do you not even know how to fucking read? have you actually read either of those papers or just what some Liberal wrote about them in some anti-gun talking point???

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6

Jocal. You are no gentleman. That you continue to lie, either by omission or commission - says all I need to know about your character.

Note: you are pretty big on using the "liar" word.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&p=4874708

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707&p=4563058

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164031&p=4876329

Come on. Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Note: Madison's descriptions in the previous paragraph speak of state militias, following state-appointed officers. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46>

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

 

[jocal505]

Quote

Tom Ray, Posted Today, 02:01 AM

The NRA paid little attention to second amendment rights up until about 2007-8, when it became apparent that the SAF was going to take the Parker (later Heller) case to the Supreme Court whether the NRA liked it or not.

...Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

“They recognized this was a good case and D.C. was the perfect place,” says plaintiffs lawyer Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute. “That’s what concerned them.”

Levy, who is bankrolling and pushing Heller to the Supreme Court out of his own pocket and on his own time, says the NRA first sent two lawyers to try to dissuade him from filing the case. After that failed, Levy says the NRA tried to hijack the case by filing a competing case, then trying to consolidate the two.

To boot, Levy says, the NRA supports congressional legislation to repeal the gun ban, which could render Heller moot. He also wonders why the NRA waited more than 25 years to challenge the 1976 D.C. ordinance.

...

In this post, Tom is confirming the CATO institute's financing of Heller.

Levy was way ahead of the NRA. They bickered for a while.

Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller

In 2002, Levy began recruiting plaintiffs for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit against the District of Columbia. Although Levy has never owned a gun himself, he was interested in the issue as a constitutional scholar and believer in individual rights. He teamed up with Clark M. Neily III of the Institute for Justice and began finding and vetting District residents who had a legitimate and appealing reason for wanting a gun for self defense at home. They eventually settled on six residents: Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. They tried to select a diverse group, and ended with men and women, black and white, and a variety of income levels. Levy only knew Palmer, a colleague at Cato, and none of the six knew each other before the case.

I can source the rift between Levy and Gura better than Tom can.

One faction of the NRA was opposed to Levy's timing...but not his bottom line on distorting the Second Amendment.

Whatever. Look at the legislative body of work the NRA was simultaneously employing.

It relied on constitutional basis. That basis was found by hi-jacking the Second Amendment.

They got the DOJ on their side (via Ashcroft), and then Heller was the result...six years later.

Levy used those six years to manufacture non-peer reviewed constitutional scholarship.

The constitutional cites quoted by Ashcroft (and organized by David Hardy for FOPA) are shoddy.Levy's work isn't much better.

But the NRA trumpeted Second Amendment claims, and paid money to twist its history, through the seventies, eighties, and nineties.

Long before Heller.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful?

 

[jocal505]

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

 

[RedTuna]

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

You mean Democrats?

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

You mean Democrats?

Cmon now - don't be like that.

 

[jocal505]

Why are so gung ho on getting guns away from responsible, legal owners, JoCal? If you want to address gun violence, wouldn't your efforts be better focused upon the people who are perpetuating it?

1.Please don't mis-state my focus, since you are a cut above many on this board.

2.The SA Gun Club is perpetuating gun violence.

First off, I don't find you guys responsible, whatsoever. "Responsible" is when you follow through on your own (meaning AGIC's) adamant insistence on efficacious action.

You want evidence-based, proven policy, you claim, but have not ante'd up to make it possible.

You're not strong enough, or bold enough (or responsible enough), to support public gun research on these boards.

Under the circumstances, to let Tom Ray's lies (repeated claims about "no research blockage") persist is damning.

It's just not responsible, considering.

Same for the entire SA Gun Club, and Gun Club Choir. Meanwhile, catastrophic gun carnage, a global aberration among developed countries, continues.

You can't be "responsible" and let gun extremists steer this boat onto the reefs, too.

I am a once-proud gunowner. My focus has been to point out to irresponsible gun owners that they are feeding, and supporting, a deadly gun problem. For guns.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

JoCal - with this reply, you have proven once and for all that you are simply beyond reason. You rant/rave about "the culture of the gun", and support looking for a solution everywhere EXCEPT at the source of the problem. Your perspective is that of an insular, myopic, willfully obtuse individual, and I'm simply finished trying to afford you the modicum of respect that intelligent, differing opinions deserve.

 

[jocal505]

JoCal - with this reply, you have proven once and for all that you are simply beyond reason. You rant/rave about "the culture of the gun", and support looking for a solution everywhere EXCEPT at the source of the problem. Your perspective is that of an insular, myopic, willfully obtuse individual, and I'm simply finished trying to afford you the modicum of respect that intelligent, differing opinions deserve.

The "source of the gun violence problem":

15% is criminal activity. 85% is made up of everyday homeowners who turn to a nearby gun during a conflict.

Guy, step it up. You are dodging like TR.

For about the tenth time in our exchanges, you have avoided the crux of the matter: is it not irresponsible to block open, scientific solution?

The real issue, IMO, will be any changes in the gun culture after public acceptance of the data. We aren't there yet.

 

[jocal505]

You pulled those numbers out of your fuking ass, didn't you? Or do have a legit cite for your 15/85 ratio of shooters that we can see?...

You are a tedious sort. Like a little yapper dog, barking away, with no reading skills.

I had an epic go-round with Jeffie about this. He fell kinda silent.

The sources were re-developed, and posted a few more times, too.

The figures in any variety of sources will range, but all will show that stranger danger is a minority of the problem.

Read the material, Senor Mariachi. I am getting tired of posting this.

Source 1.

You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time.

(see large graph in pic file under "murder by stranger".

Pasted from <http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1177>

Source 2.

Supplementary Homicide Reports

Based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), among homicides in which the victim-offender relationship could be determined, strangers committed between 21 percent and 27 percent of homicides from 1993 to 2008, compared to between 73 percent and 79 percent of homicides committed by offenders known to the victims.

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vvcs9310pr.cfm>

Source 3. Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

• In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
• In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
• From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.

About the Source Data

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4557>

Source 4. The Top 5 Murders by Relationship to the Victim in the United States

Note: strangers and criminals fail to make the FBI's top five:


Relationship (victim)/Number of Murders(2011)/Percentage of Total Murders:

1 Acquaintence

2,700

21.3%

2 [SIZE=10pt]Wife[/SIZE]

552

4.3%

3 [SIZE=10pt]Girlfriend[/SIZE]

474

3.7%

4 [SIZE=10pt]Friend[/SIZE]

377

2.97%

5 [SIZE=10pt]Other family[/SIZE]

279

2.2%
Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2011.

List Notes: Data is relationship of victim to offender (according to the data killers kill acquaintances far more than they kill fellow co-workers for example). Data is latest available data for the year 2012. Figures are based on 12,664 murders in the United States in 2011 for whom supplemental homicide data was received. Murder as defined here includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The relationship categories of husband and wife include both common-law and ex-spouses.

i

1. Out of 13,636 murders studied in the United States, 30.2% of the victims were murdered by persons known to them (4,119 victims), 13.6% were murdered by family members (1,855 victims), 12.3% were murdered by strangers (1,676 victims) and 43.9% of the relationships were unknown (investigators were not able to establish any relationship).
2. Murders were the least frequent violent victimization of all categories -- about 5 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 2009.
3. The number of homicides where the victim/offender relationship was undetermined has been increasing since 1999 but has not reached the levels experienced in the early 1990s. Between the years 1976 and 2005 the following facts were found: about one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant, 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers, and spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.
   

Source 5. WHEN MURDERS ARE NOT COMMITTED BY STRANGERS

Which is most of the time March 27, 2011

(NATIONAL) -- It might surprise many of us to know that only 15% of all murders are committed at random by a stranger; someone who does not know the victim.

And even then, the two people usually have mutual friends and acquaintances, which explains why the killer and the victim are in the same place at the same time.

Yet many assume that most murders are committed by strangers and view the discovery that a murder is not random as news.

And why would that be?

Well, it turns out, writes Christopher Beam in a new piece on Slate about the recent killing of Jayna Murray at the Lululemon Athletica store in Bethesda, Md., the FBI is partly to blame. In the early 1990s, the bureau released a report claiming that half of all homicides were committed by strangers.

But unfortunately that report was flawed.

The media is partly to blame as well. Murders don't typically make big news unless there's something unusual about them. And by covering random crime, in an often sensational way, news outfits help to create the impression that most crime is random.

Beam’s piece can be read HERE

Pasted from <http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/WHEN-MURDERS-ARE-NOT-COMMITTED-BY-STRANGERS-br-Which-is-most-of-the-time-625525>

Source 6. The FBI Uniform Crime Report will give you an answer of a sort, but only two out of three homicides are ‘solved by arrest.’http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls

If you click on the link immediately above you will find there were 12,996 murder victims but the relationship between the murderer and victim were “unknown” in 4,656 of those. That does not mean that the victim was killed by a stranger, only that the killer is “unknown to the police.” So there is really not enough data to provide a defensible answer to the question.

That said, statistical analysis pegs the most likely number between 1800 (14%) to 2200 (17%) a year.

Stranger

Pasted from <http://extranosalley.com/?p=25008>

Source 7. Percentage of murders are convicted by a stranger?

In probably upwards of 80 or 90-percent of homicides, there is some sort of relationship.

Pasted from <http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-murders-are-convicted-by-a-stranger>

Source 8. [SIZE=11pt]appendix Table 16[/SIZE]

Percents for victim/offender relationship in homicides,

1993–2008

Total Offenders

known /Unknown relationships /Strangers

1993 100% 45.8% 39.7% 14.5%

1994 100% 46.3 40.1 13.6

1995 100% 44.4 40.0 15.7

1996 100% 47.2 38.1 14.7

1997 100% 45.9 40.3 13.8

1998 100% 47.5 38.7 13.8

1999 100% 46.7 40.9 12.4

2000 100% 43.2 43.0 13.8

2001 100% 40.8 45.5 13.7

2002 100% 41.6 43.8 14.6

2003 100% 41.5 45.6 13.0

2004 100% 41.3 45.2 13.5

2005 100% 39.2 46.3 14.5

2006 100% 40.8 46.0 13.2

2007 100% 39.3 47.2 13.5

2008 100% 41.7 45.4 12.8

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicides Reports,

Uniform Crime Reports, 1993–2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

Source 9: Wolfgang Abstract, shootings by familiar people

In 1958, Wolfgang published his seminal work examining criminal homicide cases that occured in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952. This work was the beginning of an extensive body of literature focusing on the victim-offender relationship in homicides. Wolfgang and subsequent researchers consistently found that homicides tended to be intra-racial, intra-gender, and occurring overwhelmingly between relatives and friends.

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235288900335>

 

[nannygovtsucks]

...Both these Federalist Paper quickly and basically argue the authority of the STATE (46) or the FED (29) over militia gun users.. who are being directed by state or federal authority. To say that their words stress (or even discuss) individual gun rights is far-fetched (to pick a kind term). Let's go directly to the words of the former document:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of....

I'm in favor of hearth and home, and of being able to use guns for self defense, to a point. But it's not covered in either document.

Your second quote, from Adams, is not from The Federalist, and is only one of a handful of mentions of individual rights which can be demonstrated. To be continued.

Hee hee. Jocal is educating people on Federalist 46 and 29? The same guy who had to be informed by me that they have different authors.

You don't see anything significant in the bolded bits? The citizens with "arms in their hands" were expected to appear for service "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and to ensure that this was possible, we passed an amendment saying that the government could not disarm the people.

Madison was proud of this, pointing out that being armed is an advantage Americans possess over other nations. You seem to think it's a detriment.

Since we're on the militia subject, if called to serve, should militia members show up with a mean-looking rifle or with a 9 round .22 revolver like Dick Heller's constitutionally-protected weapon? Which do you think would be more useful? Straw man alert.

YOUR POSITION IS A SHAM.

Tom, these much-quoted Federalist papers forced you to expose that neither Madison nor Hamilton had spoken up for individual rights, as such. And Madison's view suggested private guns were inadequate: he openly doubted that privately owned guns were enough, but combined with state authority, both could challenge a standing army.

I am not a scholar of the Federalist papers by any means---but I can read. Look at both. Those pieces are not about any thrust for individual gun rights. On the contrary. One (Federalist 46) stresses state authority over militia, the other (Federalist 29) begs for national authority. It questions the motives of the Tom Rays of his day, too.

To ask which weapon (of two) would be "more useful" in a militia fracas is to visualize an inspection, by state authority, of your armed (tee hee) POSSE COMITATUS. In making such an argument, you just flip-flopped on individual gun rights, as such.

But to answer your strawman question, your preferred militia weapon would be something powerful, like an RPG, or a tank with a trained crew. Jeffie could show up in a joint strike fighter. See where this is going?

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

CREE

PEE

KREEEEEEE---------PEEEEEEE..........

 

[jocal505]

Its like jocal is having a conversation with himself. You point out something so obviously like the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves" and he will turn around and argue that those same people who wrote that didn't want people to own their own guns. I hold no such view. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Up is down, black is white, etc. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. And its more than a little

CREE

PEE

Q. In objective context, is this phrase the thrust of either Federalist 46 or Federalist 29?

the FF's wrote that THE PEOPLE were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves"

A. No, the source of the arms is not the thrust of either. The two essays, Federalists 46 and 29, laid out (and justified) state and federal authority over militia resources.

You are merely cherry picking a phrase.

I repeat: neither piece forms an individual rights interpretation of the second amendment.

Far from it. You and Tom and Ashcroft are bulshitters.

You once broadly tossed out the authority of "the Federalist Papers". But so far you can't quote individual self defense rights within them. Or the independent confrontation of tyrants, for that matter.