Author Topic: Re: About Freedom in the Free World  (Read 7086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

whakka

  • Member
  • Join Date: May 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 2341
About Freedom in the Free World
« on: June 04, 2007, 07:47:11 PM »
i would buy a couple, just to make sure youre armed in case of anything crazy. its your right. believe me as a felon, i cant buy any, and i realize how much it sucks, use your right to bear arms, its one of the most important rights we have. i have to get my wife to get them.

Sunfire

  • bvd| capt.
  • Join Date: Nov 2004
  • Location:
  • Posts: 6281
    • Tribes Ascend - sunfire
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2007, 07:55:03 PM »
yeah i dont have a problem with firearms at all. my problem is that any person that has a valid id can walk into a store (at least in texas) and buy automatic weapons..shotguns..whatever. my friend bought a chinese model machine gun two days ago for 200 someodd bucks. that shit just needs to be regulated more closely. id mostly be worried about my kids getting into them..i knew an 8 year old kid that found his dads gun and shot himself accidentally. some people are just careless with them.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2007, 10:01:52 PM »
Quote from: HardDrive;196568
But I totally think it was the person who broke in who was putting their life BEHIND inanimate objects.  I doubt I would use lethal force, but I definetely know I wouldn't be breaking into houses with people in them. The amount of guns in this country is enough that statistically speaking that I'm probably risking my life by breaking into anyone's house. I simply disagree with the idea that when your house is being broken into, that you would have this amount of time to truly reason out a person's intentions, or that you should really consider them above the safety of family and livelihood. Not all objects are replaceable, and some objects people own are much more valueable and can affect a lot of people's lives. people have computers and records stolen all the time that lead to roughly a metric FUCKTON in identity theft. So some guy loses records, possibly gets sued, can't pay his mortgages, gets his house taken away, and now has no job. It's not simply about the sheer "materialism" involved but the meaning at multiple levels that these material things happen to have. I wouldn't shoot to kill, I was simply trying to better explain the idea behind it. I suppose one could also consider it vigilanteism or whatever.


that's totally reasonable.

Quote from: whakka;196582
i would buy a couple, just to make sure youre armed in case of anything crazy. its your right. believe me as a felon, i cant buy any, and i realize how much it sucks, use your right to bear arms, its one of the most important rights we have. i have to get my wife to get them.


we have a right to bear arms?

whakka

  • Member
  • Join Date: May 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 2341
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2007, 10:37:54 PM »
what do you think?

  Amendment 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.
   
please dont ride my nutts son. i understand your freedom to think and talk as you please, but please, if you dont like having basic human rights, burn off to cuba or n. korea or some shit, but gtfo of here. the rest of us pretty much like our situation. now beat your feet.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2007, 10:55:31 PM »
Quote from: whakka;196648
what do you think?

  Amendment 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.
   
please dont ride my nutts son. i understand your freedom to think and talk as you please, but please, if you dont like having basic human rights, burn off to cuba or n. korea or some shit, but gtfo of here. the rest of us pretty much like our situation. now beat your feet.


that does not apply to citizens having guns. the supreme court has consistenly ruled that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia, which is now defined as the national gaurd. this is not debated, it's judicial fact. i did  research paper on gun control a few years back. and calling that a HUMAN right is wrong, at best it could be made a CIVIL right.

so where does it say we have the right to bear arms?

whakka

  • Member
  • Join Date: May 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 2341
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2007, 12:41:19 AM »
what are you having a hard time understanding here:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there is specific language here that has been discussed and debated to one end result "the people" plain and simple is not any militia, but the individual citizens. there is no other way to look at it, when you consider all of the other times in the declaration, the constitution, and the bill of rights that this language was used, not to metion numerous quotes by the framers that explicitly cited that the right was for the people of the united states; not a militia.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they       be properly armed."
     -- Alexander Hamilton

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is       then no recourse 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 entrusted 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

"That the said Constitution shall never be 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 ... "
     -- Samuel Adams

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
     -- Thomas Jefferson

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress      ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,      from keeping their own arms.... "
     --Samuel Adams

"[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

 in fact in the court cases that i could find that had anything to do with the second amendment, all said that the limitation was on congress and the federal government to not infringe on that right. some of the cases are often misquoted, or have quotes taken out of context. what court case did you find that says that the second amendment doesnt give the right to bear arms to a united states citizen in good standing?

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2007, 04:55:00 PM »
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second

sums it up better than i can.
quick quote from it:

Quote
raise no serious Second Amendment issues.

The Second Amendment in the Courts

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 Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.


it goes far more in depth.

whakka

  • Member
  • Join Date: May 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 2341
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2007, 09:07:52 PM »
lmao, i quote sam adams and thomas jefferson and you quote the brady campaign. who do you really think had more knowledge of the constitution? think you could have picked a more biased site? i can pick ten sites that are anti gun control that say that its unconstitutional to infringe on a citizens right to bear arms.

VivaMexico

  • Join Date: May 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3063
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2007, 01:42:16 AM »
whakka please post the sites as i would like to take the time to read upon this.
Quote from: Acides;319233
She was screaming and hollering for me to get a washcloth and towel, I ignored and went back to playing Tribes. I had gotten my nut off, what I care?


HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2007, 04:56:08 AM »
firearms are legal anyway, so what's the point of this discussion? I suppose you could view it as some divine right from the constitution or simply legal. it doesn't matter. That being said..
 
I would challenge that precedent based simply on the role of the so-called modern "militia" in life compared to the militia at the time of the amendment (which was essentially all adult males who were able.) And also merely because people have and will form militias and should have the same rights, for several reasons, one being simply that part of the second amendment is indeed about preventing the federal government from breaking up the militias of the states, or if one were to interpret it more broadly, for government to restrict the ability of people to defend themselves.
 
It's probably the toughest to practically interpret today because the function of a militia and of firearms is so much different today.

Bramage

  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 941
    • http://www.planetbastard.org
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2007, 08:52:58 AM »
Quote from: Sunfire;196584
yeah i dont have a problem with firearms at all. my problem is that any person that has a valid id can walk into a store (at least in texas) and buy automatic weapons..shotguns..whatever. my friend bought a chinese model machine gun two days ago for 200 someodd bucks. that shit just needs to be regulated more closely. id mostly be worried about my kids getting into them..i knew an 8 year old kid that found his dads gun and shot himself accidentally. some people are just careless with them.

 
Vermont - Easier to own a gun than Texas - Lowest violent crime rates in the country.
 
You know what that parent should have taken the time to show the kid the weapon and what it does. Help  him to understand the danger. The parents are careless and should be prosecuted for many crimes. Just because a couple people make mistakes does not mean the average citizen should lose their rights.

Quote from: MANiFESTO;196631
we have a right to bear arms?

YES WE DO!
 It is called the 2nd Amendment.
 
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
The lines about a Militia are something like a clause... will have to dig up my Gun Rights folder. Don't even try challenging me on Gun Rights. I may be 40 but I  have spent 30 years literally understanding and supporting the right to keep and bear arms. I was 10 when I fired my first gun on my own. I am not a big fan of guns but I am 100% behind the right and keep and bear arms.

Quote from: MANiFESTO;196657
that does not apply to citizens having guns. the supreme court has consistenly ruled that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia, which is now defined as the national gaurd. this is not debated, it's judicial fact. i did research paper on gun control a few years back. and calling that a HUMAN right is wrong, at best it could be made a CIVIL right.
 
so where does it say we have the right to bear arms?

AN UNQUALIFIED BULLSHIT on the Supreme court ruling on the Second Amendment - Do NOT FUCK WITH ME ON THE 2ND Amendment.
 
The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed. (Links to the Supreme Court decisions are provided at the end of each section.)
 
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
 
 
Quote from: Supreme Court 1939
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''
 
You say many but there have been only 5 and they never stated about the Right of the People. SITE EVERY CASE OR SHUT UP.
 
Recent Court case in Washington DC the DC Supreme Court - Same level as a State Supreme Court - ruled that the 2nd Amendment meant the right of the people not a National Guard.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050801212.html
 
This one is signifigant since the court ruled specifically that the right was for the PEOPLE not delegated to the Militia.
 
In writing the majority opinion, Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman states, “The Amendment does not protect ‘the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,’ but rather ‘the right of the people’.”
 
BTW if you want to keep up with the stupid Militia read the US Codes Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13
 
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 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.

 
 
Come on Manifesto... I am not insulting you I am hitting you with HARD FACTS to show where you are wrong... you going to run away or try and step up to the plate on this one?
Bramage
The One, The Original, The Hopelessly Insane
 
I love my Country, I fear my Government
 
I dont know why I still post here
Tribes 1 is dead

Bramage

  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 941
    • http://www.planetbastard.org
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2007, 09:37:52 AM »
Quote from: Sunfire;196584
yeah i dont have a problem with firearms at all. my problem is that any person that has a valid id can walk into a store (at least in texas) and buy automatic weapons..shotguns..whatever. my friend bought a chinese model machine gun two days ago for 200 someodd bucks. that shit just needs to be regulated more closely. id mostly be worried about my kids getting into them..i knew an 8 year old kid that found his dads gun and shot himself accidentally. some people are just careless with them.

 
Vermont - Easier to own a gun than Texas - Lowest violent crime rates in the country.
 
You know what that parent should have taken the time to show the kid the weapon and what it does. Help him to understand the danger. The parents are careless and should be prosecuted for many crimes. Just because a couple people make mistakes does not mean the average citizen should lose their rights.
 
Quote from: MANiFESTO;196631
we have a right to bear arms?

YES WE DO!
It is called the 2nd Amendment.
 
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
The lines about a Militia are something like a clause... will have to dig up my Gun Rights folder. Don't even try challenging me on Gun Rights. I may be 40 but I have spent 30 years literally understanding and supporting the right to keep and bear arms. I was 10 when I fired my first gun on my own. I am not a big fan of guns but I am 100% behind the right and keep and bear arms.
 
Quote from: MANiFESTO;196657
that does not apply to citizens having guns. the supreme court has consistenly ruled that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia, which is now defined as the national gaurd. this is not debated, it's judicial fact. i did research paper on gun control a few years back. and calling that a HUMAN right is wrong, at best it could be made a CIVIL right.
 
so where does it say we have the right to bear arms?

AN UNQUALIFIED BULLSHIT on the Supreme court ruling on the Second Amendment.
 
 
The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed. (Links to the Supreme Court decisions are provided at the end of each section.)
 
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
 
 
Quote from: Supreme Court 1939
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''
 
You say many but there have been only 5 and they never stated about the Right of the People. SITE EVERY CASE OR SHUT UP.
 
Recent Court case in Washington DC the DC Supreme Court - Same level as a State Supreme Court - ruled that the 2nd Amendment meant the right of the people not a National Guard.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050801212.html
 
This one is signifigant since the court ruled specifically that the right was for the PEOPLE not delegated to the Militia.
 
In writing the majority opinion, Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman states, “The Amendment does not protect ‘the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,’ but rather ‘the right of the people’.”
 
BTW if you want to keep up with the stupid Militia read the US Codes Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13
 
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 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.
 
 
 
This is just the opening salvo. I have literally an inches thick folder on Gun Rights and it is probably the biggest sub category on my Favorites.

HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2007, 10:03:18 AM »
This will surely be epic.
 
I really haven't formulated an opinion about guns and gun control--I do think the second amendment does at least to a degree give this at some basic spirit to the idea that this country was formed really by this militia and not by the governing bodies which it was composed of and by extension, gives real meaning to the sort of revolution on which this country was built on.
 
With this a quote comes to mind.
 
"The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
-Hannah Arendt.
 
In other words, I think the spirit of the constitution was really to establish undying ideals that stayed on long after the spirit of the government had faded, and one of these was the formation of militias and having people really keep the government in balance--and kept in place to keep the government itself in check, due to the experiences of those who had lived through the events leading up to the revolution.
 
The militia that once was the hand of a scorned people has become a hand of the government--a government which has ignored reality and has become complacent for long enough, and that is why the people formed militias in the first place, and that's why I think the second amendment exists; to allow such people to form their militias so that the inevitable decline of a government doesn't destroy everything. This was the thought process leading up to the civil war, a war which while very destructive was likely a necessary catalyst for universal change.
 
I think it's disturbing how much people really push to empower world governments, or big governments for that matter.
 
Just my $0.02.

whakka

  • Member
  • Join Date: May 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 2341
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2007, 11:49:14 AM »
can hd or monkey please move my comments here from this page of this thread.

http://www.troc.us/forum/showthread.php?t=14145&page=3



 

* Permissions

  • You can't post new topics.
  • You can't post replies.
  • You can't post attachments.
  • You can't modify your posts.