Sometimes stupid loses

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:29:11 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:



Exactly. this is why the first part of the second amendment is, "A
well regulated Militia being necessary for the protection of a free
state,...."

So what happens when the standing citizen army (plus the rest of the
military) is sufficient to the task?

Sometimes it isn't, and such times cannot be predicted well in
advance.
In such a case a citizen militia
is not necessary for the protection of the free state. If the right
to keep and bear arms were not intended to be conditional on that
need, why not simply say we have the right to keep and bear arms?
Why state the conditions if not to say it's conditional?

There aren't any "conditions" in the amendment. As Justice Thurgood
Marshall said, "The Second Amendment is the closest thing to an
unconditional right that can be found in the Constitution." And
Marshall by the way was no great friend of the right to keep and bear
arms.

There are lots of things in the constitution that have become
irrelevant on inapplicable because of changes over time.

If they're irrelevant (which for example you could probably say of
the Third Amendment), then they shouldn't bother you in any way.

If they're relevant but you just don't like them, then they can be
repealed by amendment. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment of 1919
(re the Volstead Act) was one of those do-gooder things that turned
out to be extremely unpopular, and it was eventually repealed by the
Twenty-first Amendment.of 1933.

But that's too difficult, because you need 2/3 majority of the states.
It's far easier for the libs to use doublespeak, and say the 2nd means
only the militia has the right to keep & bear. And, in many instances they
have gotten SCOTUS to agree with them!

SCOTUS has never agreed with that as far as I'm aware. The Supreme Court
case that most anti-gun folks like to cite as proof of their position is the
Miller case of 1939. But in Miller, the only point the Court made re the
Second Amendment was that a sawed-off double barrel shotgun was not a type
of weapon suitable for use by militia, and therefore its possession,
transport, etc., was not protected by the Amendment as claimed by the
defendant.

This in fact was one of the four points argued by the government, that "the
Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons
appropriate for use in an organized militia." (Wikipedia) That's what the
Court agreed with.

Logically, therefore, the Miller ruling by SCOTUS should *protect* the
individual's right to own an M16 or other full-auto weapon, since such
obviously *are* weapons appropriate for militia use.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
John A. wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:29:11 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:



Exactly. this is why the first part of the second amendment is, "A
well regulated Militia being necessary for the protection of a
free state,...."

So what happens when the standing citizen army (plus the rest of
the military) is sufficient to the task?

Sometimes it isn't, and such times cannot be predicted well in
advance.
In such a case a citizen militia
is not necessary for the protection of the free state. If the right
to keep and bear arms were not intended to be conditional on that
need, why not simply say we have the right to keep and bear arms?
Why state the conditions if not to say it's conditional?

There aren't any "conditions" in the amendment. As Justice Thurgood
Marshall said, "The Second Amendment is the closest thing to an
unconditional right that can be found in the Constitution." And
Marshall by the way was no great friend of the right to keep and
bear arms.

There are lots of things in the constitution that have become
irrelevant on inapplicable because of changes over time.

If they're irrelevant (which for example you could probably say of
the Third Amendment), then they shouldn't bother you in any way.

If they're relevant but you just don't like them, then they can be
repealed by amendment. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment of 1919
(re the Volstead Act) was one of those do-gooder things that turned
out to be extremely unpopular, and it was eventually repealed by the
Twenty-first Amendment.of 1933.

But that's too difficult, because you need 2/3 majority of the
states. It's far easier for the libs to use doublespeak, and say the
2nd means only the militia has the right to keep & bear. And, in
many instances they have gotten SCOTUS to agree with them!

SCOTUS has never agreed with that as far as I'm aware. The Supreme
Court case that most anti-gun folks like to cite as proof of their
position is the Miller case of 1939. But in Miller, the only point
the Court made re the Second Amendment was that a sawed-off double
barrel shotgun was not a type of weapon suitable for use by militia,
and therefore its possession, transport, etc., was not protected by
the Amendment as claimed by the defendant.

This in fact was one of the four points argued by the government,
that "the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of
military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."
(Wikipedia) That's what the Court agreed with.

Logically, therefore, the Miller ruling by SCOTUS should *protect* the
individual's right to own an M16 or other full-auto weapon, since such
obviously *are* weapons appropriate for militia use.

Yes. The second said nothing about a well filled stomach with venison being
necessary to....., Or a well punched out target bull being necessary to the
egos of..... It said a well regulated militia.... So they were obviously
talking about assault weapons. And, every house in this country should have
at least one in it.