Heh, I like those ones. Lol, that reminded me of the Hans Blix scene in Team America: World Police: Hans Brix in Kim Jong Il's palace Soldier: Hoi te? Han ching! Pae ja, Hans Brix bo tae so tae ka. [Sir, Hans Blix is here from the United Nations] Kim Jong Il: Hans Brix? Oh no! [Enter Hans Blix] Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans! Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, and your guards won't let me enter certain areas. Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't-have-any-weapons-a-mass-destwuction, 'kay Hans? Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the U.N.'s collective mind. Kim Jong Il: Hans, a-breakin' my balls here, Hans, ya breakin' my balls! Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else. Kim Jong Il: Or else what? Hans Blix: Or else - we will be very, very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. Kim Jong Il: Okay, I show you, Hans. You'r ready? Stand a rittre to your reft. [Hans Blix moves to the left.] Kim Jong Il: Rittle more. [Hans Blix moves further to the left.] Kim Jong Il: Gewd. [Hans Blix falls into a trap and is subsequently attacked by sharks.] Kim Jong Il: There you go, Hans Brix. How you rike that, you fucking cocksucker! [Hans Blix struggles to escape the sharks in vain] Kim Jong Il: Do you have any idea how fuckin busy I am, Hans Brix? Werr, Fuck you! You want inspection? Werr, inspect that! You butt-fucking piece of shit! Aww, murder is not very nice. I'm sure you'll have an angry little note written to you also. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
No, I don't think so. The English language just isn't used like that ...I don't think????? Let's try it this way, okay? Here is your statement: We don't want you to protect our rights. Especially when protecting our rights means being forced to take over your rights. Now, let's put in the proper "our" and "your" to see what you might mean, okay? I'll use the nation of Spurious as "our", and America as "your": Spurians don't want Americans to protect Spurians' rights. Especially when protecting Spurian rights means being forced to take over American rights. Now please tell me how in the world that makes any sense? If so, I'm dumber than a box of rocks!!! Baron Max
I am well aware that americans might not want to understand this simple concept. But I was never aware that they couldn't.
I hate to have to teach you English, but if you read the 2nd Amendment as it's written, it says that only "well regulated militias" have the right to bear arms, see below: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ watch, see that the amendment is made up of 4 dependent clauses, each set by a comma: 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. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_clause.html I can't help it, if people only quote 2 of the clauses, it’s all political or a matter of convenience I myself, like this part:
the 2nd amend. states that we should have a militia made of the people,AND the peoples right to bear arms. guns had just won americas freedoms,and since the founding fathers didnt confiscate guns or outlaw them to the common man in ANY way shape or form after we became america,the only interpratation of the second is that we have the right to bear arms.
Yeah, and how long were we a nation before the doo-gooder, liberal, bleeding hearts even began to think about private weapon confiscation? That must tell us something, huh? Baron Max
No, it is a right of the people. Unless you believe that the other ammendments spelling out the "right of the people to" applies only to the militia? Only the militia has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? Only the militia has the right to be secure in their persons or papers? I don't think so.
And I'd hate to teach you reading comprehension, but the right to bear arms is what MAKES a "well-regulated" militia. It doesn't mean you have to first be well-regulated to first qualify to be armed or not. When a militia is no longer armed, it is not well-regulated. Regulated, in this case, is used in the definition of: "To adjust for accurate and proper functioning." - N
me?? I think you should re-read that amendment, seems to me you misunderstand what those 4 clauses say? wwwwhatttt??? What makes a well-regulated militia is training & regulation, sorry to have to explain this to you, but in olden times, ‘militia’ meant citizen-soldiers, what has now evolved into the “National Guard”, sound familiar? do you really believe that? Do you know what you just said? Does it make any sense to anyone else? Proper functioning? I hate to have to teach you history too, but here’s a note from the ‘Founding Fathers’ (who hopefully knew what they meant when they were founding this country?), known as the “Federalist Papers”: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm Or read these: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed4.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
Why? Because they are incapable of writing tight, conscientious policy? The basic principle cannot be shown to be in conflict with the Constitution, though I would not doubt that the specific method or language is. As to the question of how, please remember that any legislative authority--the people included--can pass any law they want, and then the lawyers get fat. No porn on broadcast television? First Amendment violation. There are places I cannot carry a knife for self-defense; incidentally, the police are more afraid of me if I have a knife than if I have a gun. At least, that's how the officer explained it to me. I noticed the NRA is not putting up much of a stink about this violation of my Second Amendment rights. USA-PATRIOT Act? Hell, the whole Bill of Rights disappears. Among the states, 2004 saw several pass laws that discriminate against gender, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It may take twenty years to undo the damage "middle America" did to freedom last year. It may take a century to heal the wounds inflicted by the USA-PATRIOT Act. God knows when the First Amendment will be allowed to breath, and I don't ever expect to wake up and find my favorite knives suddenly legal for me to pack. Life is. One thing about weapons and crime I can say definitively is that I get into fewer fights, and endure fewer escalations living unarmed. And I'm not the only one who noticed.
The National Guard isn't really a militia. It is an official branch of the Department of Defense. The National Guard is no longer used as a safety net for when our country comes under attack. They are used like normal forces now. There are two types of militia, an organized militia, and an unorganized militia. An organized militia is one that is controlled by the government which is what the army and National Guard is. An unorganized militia is what a civilian militia is. An unorganized militia is what the 2nd ammendment refers to, otherwise there would be no point in mentioning the ammendment since government armies already come equipped with arms. Here's a quick example from the state of Missouri that I found off a quick search of google (I'd do better and show ya more references but I gotta leave to a family gathering in a few minutes) and you'll find the same in other states as well: As you mentioned earlier, your favorite part of the 2nd ammenment is: Which is selective reading and not taking in the whole part of the 2nd ammendment, which is why I said you need reading comprehension. The reason why bearing arms is what makes a well-regulated militia is due to the FULL ammendment: "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." Bearing arms is what makes a militia and is what makes them period. That's why the rest is added in there of the people's rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It reinforces the rest of the ammendment by mentioning that part. It's what makes an UNORGANIZED (CITIZENS) militia, not a government-run ORGANIZED National Guard. Basically, an unorganized citizens militia is like security forces of today. They're independent and have their own rules although they help the government even though the government doesn't control them or tell em what to do. When the shit hits the fan and America comes under attack, the citizens will rise up and bear their arms and go a'fightin without the organized control as if they were an army or National Guard. And wow, do my eyes deceive me? Hi, Tiassa. - N
"to bear arms", is selective reading, my reference to the 1st 2 clauses was only to make a point, that if you only use 2 clauses, to the detriment of the rest of the amendment, you miss the whole point, remember, each clause by itself is not a complete though, unless you suffer from ADD here's a little play on words to make my point: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed."
And the above still means if people no longer have the right to bear arms, you are infringing on having a well-regulated militia, which again, shows that the most important part of a militia -- the whole part which MAKES up a militia -- is their right to bear arms. If it weren't so, a different statement would have been used instead of bearing arms. Something such as you referred to in your previous post, the 2nd ammendment would have instead read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to have commanding officers and good training, shall not be infringed." Or your shuffled version: "The right of the people to have commanding officers and good training, being necessary to the security of a free State, a well-regulated militia, shall not be infringed." You seem to think order and training is what makes up a miltia. No, it's not order, it's their ability to have weapons. Without weapons, people have no chance in a fight. Order and command is what makes up an ARMY, not a militia. So in this case, it's the weapons that make the militia well-regulated, not order and command as would be with an official army. If it weren't so, the 2nd ammendment would have used something else besides the right to bear arms. As I said earlier, there are two types of miltia. One is an organized militia and the other is an unorganized militia. An organized militia is government controlled which is basically an army as they have a whole tier of command. The National Guard falls under that. An unorganized militia is a militia by the citizens. Basically it's a last resort mess where everyone just grabs their guns and defends for their life. That's the whole point of the 2nd ammendment. Giving us the ability to defend ourselves when the time comes. - N
I agree with you, I expect to see you at the local National Guard next weekend or signing up for home guard duty, you "well regulated militia", you if I may be so bold as suggest why the early gov didn't confiscate guns, the answer would be; "thar b injuns ot thar", "the Brits", "the French" & "the Spanish". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia so, Mars13, when was the last time you did drills, or were called up by the gov for duty? keep that gun handy, just in case
Hi, Firstly I'd like to introduce myself -- I am a new poster. I'd also like to apologize that this thread is extremely long, and I only have read the first and last pages. And because of that, I cannot make a detailed response to any one significant post -- if you will, I'd like to make one general post about my stance and be able to respond to replies thenafter. Without a doubt in my mind, the Second Amendement protects individual gun ownership. U.S. v Miller stated that a sawed off shotgun below legal limits had no militia use, and therefore he wasn't protected under the Constitution. I cannot think of any other amendment which protects the right as a group and not an individual. First amendment doesn't only protect a group right to speech or a church's right to exist, it protects individual right to speech and individual's rights of religion. To say that the Second only applies to the National Guard, an entity officially created a century and then some years after the acceptance of the Constitution is hard to believe. And beyond that, there is always the self-defense view of the importance of the right of gun ownership. It must be acknowledged that criminals will not obey the laws -- hence why they are "criminals". To deny the law abiding citizen parity of protection in means that the criminals are using for aggression, to me, is absurd. There is a great dissent written by Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court regarding Silveira vs. Lockyer:
