Another response to A Well Regulated Militia...:
Another response to A Well Regulated Militia...:
A MySpace bulletin from a Ron Paul supporter (i.e., a libertarian nut) named eone1:
From: eone1 eone1
myspace.com/eone111
Date: Oct 29, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: Hypocrite Kucinich To Draft Legislation To Ban Handguns!
Body:
Why because -
"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
With that said, Any legislation that bans firearms no matter how small or big is an assault on are Freedom, Liberty and Constitution. You know that document that freed the Nation ??
Are masters that rule this world do not want We The People to have access to firearms. Why ? Their scared that the booboisie are going to rise up and dethrone them.
Let's get two things straight.
1. Banning guns does not reduce crime. Crime goes UP when the law abiding citizen is disarmed.
2. The Second amendment is not about hunting and it's not about target shooting. It's about giving the government good reason to leave the citizen alone
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
535 people on Capital Hill whose JOB it is to write the laws that govern all of us and he is ONE OF THEM
535 people on Capital Hill whose job it is to preserve the constitution and he is ONE OF THEM…..
535 people on Capital Hill whose job it is to preserve are liberties and he is ONE OF THEM…..
But in his Heart and he's Head, in he's Character and in he's Intellect in what he has done and in what he will become the Thomas Jefferson of are day RON PAUL IS ONE OF US !!!!!!!!!
HR 1955, This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever read !!
[Long, tedious summary of HR 1955 omitted.]
This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.
Call your senator and reps now, it's not a done deal yet it still needs to go the senate. Call, Right, Now !! And Scream !!! ..
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=CA
THIS IS A LINK TO THE NEO-CON WHO CAME UP WITH HR 1955 call her offices the info is on the page,I called and said I did not want to see this bill passed, thay will ask you name and address.
We need everyone to call all 3 offices NOW!!!!!!
http://www.house.gov/harman/
Rob's reply
I searched the legislation you sent and couldn't find anything about guns or arms. Can you quote me the specific clause where Kucinich wants to ban guns?
Banning guns may be unconstitutional, but regulating them isn't. The 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to a "well regulated militia," meaning the Founders expected armed citizens to be regulated.
The debate continues (10/30/07)....
From: eone1 eone1
myspace.com/eone111
Date: Oct 30, 2007 11:11 PM
Subject: RE: Hypocrite Kucinich To Draft Legislation To Ban Handguns!
Body:
If you think guns should be Banned/Regulated then your an Idiot.
Hypocrite Kucinich Drafts Legislation To Ban Guns
Entertains notion that bloodthirsty Neo-Fascists carried out 9/11, then says we should hand over our only protection against them
Prison Planet | April 20, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
Dennis Kucinich has shot himself in the foot, pardon the pun, by alienating a huge majority of his most vocal and active online supporters, the 9/11 Truth Movement, in drafting legislation that will completely ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.
Kucinich has effectively ended any minute chance he had of becoming President in 2008.
The Congressman from Cleveland has received plaudits for being the only man on Capitol Hill, besides Ron Paul, to even consider pushing for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11. Though Kucinich warned that the investigation "would be limited," he has promised to organize a committee before the end of the year to focus on "Some specific areas that to me represent the most egregious examples of distortion of truth or lack of information."
"By focusing in on that, I'll be able to bring forward a new dimension to the discussions. And from there, we'll move ahead," said Kucinich.
According to Raw Story, the Congressman has also selected a date to introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.
Wonderful, empowering, a breath of fresh air — but you know it just sounded too good to be true, because now comes this ;
"Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians."
That's right — our intrepid warrior in the fight to restore the Constitution, wants to gut the very bedrock of it — the Second Amendment.
Just as the Bush administration exploited the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to ram through the Patriot Act, Kucinich cites the Virginia Massacre as evidence of a "national emergency" that requires an instant assault on the bill of rights to "protect" us all from the madmen.
Kucinich is seemingly willing to entertain the notion that 9/11 was carried out by a ruthless gang of bloodthirsty Neo-Fascists within our own government, yet he thinks we should all hand in our only means of defense against such thugs when the men in black ski-masks come knocking.
Notice Kucinich specifies that only "civilians" will be forced to turn in their weapons — the guardians of the state will still be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth to keep us all safe.
Gun control is a religion, and no matter how many facts you throw out about how guns prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes every year, or arguments about how criminals don't obey laws and gun control only disarms the victims, the majority will never change minds that are already made up.
Liberals still argue that the language of the Second Amendment applies only to a "well regulated militia" and not the individual, selectively ignoring the very framers of the Constitution, the founding fathers, who in their writings made it abundantly clear that the right to bear arms was included so Americans had a recourse to defend themselves against a tyrannical government — the very tyranny that Kucinich is grandstanding to oppose in his 9/11 and impeachment movements.
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 to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
—Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
—14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Many more quotes can be found here.
Activists within the 9/11 Truth Movement who believe that elements of the U.S. government attacked them on September 11 but support relinquishing the only defense against tyranny to these very same killers are in serious need of a wake up call. They should also immediately identify with George W. Bush, who also shares their zeal for gun control .
Dennis Kucinich needs to understand that if he attempts to legislate away our fundamental liberties and our single defense against tyranny while proclaiming himself to be a champion of freedom, his hypocrisy will be his downfall and the 9/11 Truth Movement will desert him
[I assume the entire column after "your an Idiot" is Watson's work, not eone1's. I assume this because Watson apparently can spell, punctuate, and capitalize correctly and eone1 can't.]
Rob's reply
So the previous legislation you cited had nothing to do with guns—as I thought. In the future you might want to make your messages clearer.
To be specific, you wrote, "Hypocrite Kucinich To Draft Legislation To Ban Handguns!" (copying the headline from Watson's article, apparently). What you meant to write was "Hypocrite Kucinich To Draft Legislation That Has Nothing To Do With Banning Handguns!" See what I mean?
There's a huge difference between banning and regulating guns. I think we should regulate them the same way we regulate any potentially dangerous items: nuclear bombs and missiles; napalm, dynamite, and nitroglycerin; smallpox and anthrax viruses; planes, trains, and automobiles; lions and tigers and bears; etc.
Quotes from Thomas Jefferson or whoever aren't the same as the text of the Constitution. (In fact, Jefferson had little or nothing to do with writing the Constitution.) I guess you have nothing to say about the Founders' explicit use of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.
>> If you think guns should be Banned/Regulated then your an Idiot. <<
See Some Arguments for Gun Control for more information. And the word is "you're," not "your."
The debate continues (11/1/07)....
From: eone1 eone1
myspace.com/eone111
Date: Nov 1, 2007 1:17 AM
Subject: RE: Hypocrite Kucinich To Draft Legislation To Ban Handguns!
Body:
The previous legislation I attached was for your reading enjoyment, it had nothing to do with what you were looking for as far as an answer goes. I just wanted you to read it.
Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Regulated has several different meanings
1) To put in good order.
2) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
3) OR to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
—The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
Article II. A well regulated (trained) Militia (manned by volunteers and not paid for by the state, federal government), being necessary to the security of a Free State (you can't have a secured and Free State if your enemies have superior fire power) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I can't organize a Militia without guns and I can't join one if I don't have guns, so how am I going to secure a Free State ?
We fought a Revolution in this country to free US from slave Taxation/Debt Currency. Those same people (Family) are in Complete Control of are Goverment.
In Adamson v. California, 1947) the Supreme Court refers to the Bill of Rights as protecting individual rights:
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..."
And again the dissent agrees:
"The first 10 amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties."
Rob's reply
I first read Federalist No. 29 about 30 years ago. I know what it says, thanks.
1) In this essay, Hamilton refers to regulation several times without linking it to discipline. Nor does he ever limit it only to discipline. For instance:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.
2) Hamilton makes it crystal-clear that regulating militias is a national governmental power—i.e., a congressional power:
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
The phrase "under the regulation" doesn't mean that Congress also must be disciplined and organized. It means Congress can pass laws to regulate militias.
Hamilton confirms this when he writes:
What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia...?
Not "regulation" (singular) as in discipline, but "regulations" (plural) as in laws and rules.
3) There's no need for your cramped interpretation of "regulation" as training only. Hamilton spells out the congressional power he envisions in one line:
It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia....'
There you have it. Disciplining is only one part of the Union power he proposes. It also includes the very act of arming the militias. So Congress gets to decide who gets arms, when, and how.
4) Even if regulation did mean training only, which it doesn't, Congress would have every right to impose laws requiring gun owners to be trained and certified before they use their arms. Even you must agree with that. So your claim that any gun-control law is unconstitutional is flatly wrong.
In short, Federalist No. 29 is completely consistent with congressional laws that regulate gun ownership. Sorry to burst your libertarian bubble and show you the plain reality. Better luck next time, chum.
You're not seriously going to cite a single court case to prove the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms, are you? Let me summarize the history of 2nd Amendment rulings for you:
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999, the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia.
When the Supreme Court overturns its previous ruling and declares the right to bear arms an individual right, please let me know. Until then, the above remains the law of the land.
Rob
|
. . . |
|
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.