TSRF wrote:

Nobody is going to win? Connecticut just won…

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/supreme-court-declines-consideration-of-law-banning-some-semi-automatic-assault-weapons/index.html

Supreme Court lets stand law banning some semi-automatic assault weapons

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 9:45 AM ET, Mon June 20, 2016
sandy hook cop gun control debate feyerick pkg nr_00011719

Former Sandy Hook top cop pushing for safer guns 03:01
(CNN)The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut gun law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

The law bans certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Although the decision comes days after the Orlando shooting, that event probably didn’t move the justices either way. In recent years the Court has declined to take up a major Second Amendment case. In 2008, 5-4 Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, and except for a follow up decision two years later, the court has not weighed in again.
Since then, a raging debate has developed between gun rights supporters who say that lower courts are not heeding supreme court precedent and gun control activists who say they are pushing for what they consider reasonable restrictions.

That is sad. The law abiding citizens of CT lost.

Billy_T wrote:

And citing “re-enactments” is beyond silly. To the extent those are ever possible, they are highly regulated, require umpteen licenses and special permits. The weaponry must be in the form of “duds” and basically unusable. And those re-enactments can only be held in specific places, for a specific purpose and specifically limited time, as per those licenses and permits. Once that time allotment is over, they are no longer allowed.

This pic was from last years Secret City festival. The re-enactment battle is held right in the middle of town, EVERY YEAR, and is live fire (blanks obviously, no duds since that is saved for up your way I guess?) with every type of weapon historically in that battle as well as others. This year the 88 was back along with allied and axis armor including the first time for a Soviet T34 main battle tank. The Allied glider exhibit was something new too.

“The thunderous discharge of weaponry including tanks, artillery, and the anti-aircraft weapon, Flak 88, could be heard from all over Oak Ridge,” the release said.”
http://oakridgetoday.com/2015/06/20/record-crowds-secret-city-festival-was-tremendous-success/

Live fire every year in the middle of downtown. I must be making this up too!

Billy_T wrote:

bnw,

Don’t just repeat your assertions. Prove them. Show legal proof that Americans can legally purchase, possess and use machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, tanks, armored cars, grenades, high explosives and so on. Prove it.

Repeating your claims isn’t proof.

This picture looks like I’m not telling the truth? Really?

Billy_T wrote:

Oh, and about MLK and guns:

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Complicated Legacy On Gun Violence

“If you went to King’s house in 1955 or 1956, there were guns,” Cobb said in an interview. “When they bombed his house in 1956, his first instinct was to apply for a gun permit. He moves toward nonviolence slowly. By the 1960s, he abandoned the idea of weapons for self-defense.”

and

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a King aide who was at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, when King was shot and killed, said King was mindful of the role of guns.

“Dr. King’s point was that the protection of one’s home is self-evident, but he was quick to add that you’re more likely to shoot a relative or commit suicide (with a gun),” Jackson said. “He refused to keep a gun in his house for that reason.”

After his home was bombed, King got rid of his gun and eschewed weapons, said King lieutenant Andrew Young. Before joining King, Young owned a shotgun and a handgun. The movement did not condemn defensive violence, Young explained; King simply did not engage in it.

“He decided he was not going to have a gun, and he didn’t want anybody with guns around him,” Young said.

Doesn’t at all change the fact that he owned guns and wanted to use them in defense of his and his family safety.

zn wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Yet in regards to the 2nd Amendment ALL those militias were armed by PRIVATE CITIZENS.

nittany ram wrote:

Some of the muskets came from private citizens but many of the muskets came from the armories of individual states. The states maintained armories to supply the militias. By 1778, most of the continental army’s muskets were supplied by France.

bnw, remember, I was not discussing gun laws in my last few posts. I was talking about the 80s/90s militia movement and their claim that private paramilitary groups are sanctioned by historical precedent. And no, they are not…that was a nutcase revisionary reading of american history made by neo-nazies, white supremacists, and fringe extremist righties. That’s all I was talking about.

I had left the “gun control” discussion for the “what were militias really” discussion and from that had gun to the “80s/90s militia movement re-wrote history” point.

So it is not really a response to THAT to talk about gun ownership.

It’s like I am discussing the 1st quarter of the 2015 2nd Seattle game, and your response is to say “Arians is too a good coach.”

…

….

At issue is the 2nd Amendment and the intent when written. Your mentioning militia anything after that is not germane.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

“When the British attempted to disarm the American populace during 1774-75, citizens formed private militias that were independent of the royal governors’ control.”

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

And what happened to that once the states banded into a legal order under the auspices of the continental congress?

Again for convenience sake, from the wiki:

The Continental Army consisted of soldiers from all 13 colonies, and after 1776, from all 13 states. When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers, for local defense, or the raising of temporary “provincial regiments” during specific crises such as the French and Indian War of 1754–63. As tensions with Great Britain increased in the years leading to the war, colonists began to reform their militias in preparation for the perceived potential conflict. Training of militiamen increased after the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774. Colonists such as Richard Henry Lee proposed forming a national militia force, but the First Continental Congress rejected the idea.

On April 23, 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress authorized the raising of a colonial army consisting of 26 company regiments. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut soon raised similar but smaller forces. On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common defense, adopting the forces already in place outside Boston (22,000 troops) and New York (5,000). It also raised the first ten companies of Continental troops on a one-year enlistment, riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia to be used as light infantry, who became the 1st Continental Regiment in 1776. On June 15, 1775, the Congress elected by unanimous vote George Washington as Commander-in-Chief, who accepted and served throughout the war without any compensation except for reimbursement of expenses.

On July 18, 1774, the Congress requested all colonies form militia companies from “all able bodied effective men, between sixteen and fifty years of age.” It was not uncommon for men younger than sixteen to enlist as most colonies had no requirement of parental consent for those under twenty-one (adulthood).

“Private militias” from that period (ie. really, former colonial militias in insurrection) were not legal when there were in fact a body of laws governing the former colonies.

The right-wing and white supremacist paramilitary groups in existence today claiming a legal foundation in those early, pre-continental army militias are just basically ignoring law and re-writing history.

Oh and it honestly does not matter what you personally know or don’t–I am posting for everyone. Not everyone reading this thread is familiar with the history. So don’t take it personally when I post context.

Yet in regards to the 2nd Amendment ALL those militias were armed by PRIVATE CITIZENS. As in the people brought and used their own firearms. I have addressed this before. Congress was broke. No money. No money to spend on the Continental army so definitely no money to spend on militias. Only training was afforded to some militiamen which were then known as minutemen. The private citizen owning a firearm was essential to the arming of the militia. Both elements are forever guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment whether subsequent congresses or the french King or anyone else wants to arm the militia.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Really? Or is this the “nutcase propaganda” another poster here accuses supporters of the 2nd Amendment right?

You misread me, or I wasn’t clear, or both.

Here is what I actually said:

Look up the history and avoid the nutcase propaganda that’s out there on that.

That was about the history of militas in the USA.

There is an actual, and very complicated, history of what militias initially were in the USA and how they were organized and regulated and legitimized. That history is in flux, though in the period of the constitution, militias were state-governed organizations. The term was also used as a cover for slave patrols. In fact one of the key debates defining the 2nd amendment was driven by the fear in southern states that if the national government had sole authority over militias, they would use them to end slavery.

On the other hand, there’s the 80s/90s militia movement in the USA, which claims essentially that individuals have the right to form what are in effect private armies.

Many people who defend THAT militia movement come up with phony, bogus histories of what militias are historically and legally.

THAT is what I am referring to. Nutcase propaganda from right-wing militia advocates about the history of militias in colonial and post-colonial america. (These include some devoted white supremacist groups.)

I did not say that “supporters of [your interpretation of] the 2nd amendment” were all nutcases. As I said, either you misread or I wasn’t clear or both.

For convenience, from a Wiki on that:

The militia movement is a largely American subculture consisting primarily of disaffected, rural, white, right-wing Christians who believe that the federal government’s authority is either broadly abused or outright null and void, and that the American people must form armed paramilitary groups in order to stand up to Washington and make their voice heard. The movement was mostly active in the early-mid 1990s, and appears to be making a comeback in recent years following the election of Barack Obama, though it is not as powerful as it was at its peak.

Most militia organizations envisage themselves as legally legitimate organizations authorized under constitutional and statute law, specifically references in state and federal law to an “unorganized militia”. Others subscribe to the “insurrection theory” which describes the right of the body politic to rebel against the established government in the face of tyranny. (In the 1951 case Dennis v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the insurrection theory, stating that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, “political self-defense” cannot be undertaken.)

Many of these groups conversely view themselves (or frame themselves to the public) as groups of citizens organized and ready to be called on by local government when needed, and that private citizens’ militias such as theirs were the “original intent” of the Founders for national defense and assistance with local law enforcement. This is a half-truth. While it is true that, historically, government agencies (from the local sheriff to the state) have called upon private citizens during times of emergency or temporarily deputized private citizens, and most state constitutions include definitions of the “unorganized militia” as all adult males (usually between a certain age range, 18 to 45) for this purpose, it is a leap of logic to conclude this sanctions the formation of private paramilitary organizations not organized by nor recognized by the government. The concept is “all adult males”, not a private group of people holding decidedly fringe views proclaiming themselves “the” militia.

Most militia groups claim direct lineage from Revolutionary War groups such as the Minutemen, and at least a few claim to be available to their states for defense purposes. However, many, if not most, states have laws against private armies such as these or any sort of paramilitary organization not directly authorized by state or federal government.

Legally speaking, the National Guard (which is not any sort of citizen militia), is considered the “organized militia” under US federal law (state laws generally include the State Defense Force as well, if they have one), while the “unorganized militia” is all males of a certain age according to the same law.

While the modern militia movement first took shape in the 1990s, they appear to have taken at least some of their ideology and organizational tactics from two earlier movements: the Minutemen of the 1960s, and the Posse Comitatus of the ’70s and ’80s. The former was originally intended as a “stay-behind” militia meant to resist a Communist invasion of the United States, before turning into a more militant version of the John Birch Society that proclaimed the Reds to have already taken over the US government. The latter, meanwhile, introduced a radically anti-federalist doctrine that, through a bizarre reading of the common law, denied the legitimacy of the federal and state governments, and also incorporated Christian Identity beliefs.

Going back further, arguments have also be made that the Ku Klux Klan was the first militia group as we would recognize it today, in the sense that they declared war on the US government in order to end Reconstruction and preserve their idealized way of life. This applies only to the first wave of the Klan, however; later incarnations, while certainly violent, were primarily engaged in political activism rather than armed insurrection.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Militia_movement

I already addressed this. Nothing new in the history you present. I already knew it.

AGAIN,

The initial armed response against British colonial rule was from the PRIVATE MILITIAS during the early 1770s.

Billy_T wrote:

It has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control. It’s never given any American an unfettered right to unlimited, unrestricted consumer choice in the first place. No such right has ever existed anywhere in the world, including here.

WRONG! Such lies won’t help your cause of gun control. I have answered this ad nauseum. Whenever gun technology has advanced the law abiding citizen has had access to that gun. From the musket to the machine gun. From the very beginning of this republic and 150 years before it on this continent. Machine guns could be bought easily before 1934. Since 1934 you have to pay $200 tax per each machine gun, silencer etc. You also have some hoops to jump through. BUT THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL TO OWN. Here. ALWAYS.

People don’t realize that because they are IGNORANT of the facts. I have to correct people all the time here yet I admit it isn’t doing any good since all they have to do is hear their lying MSM reporters and their LYING gun grabbing politicians and in their mind they are an instant expert.

Billy_T wrote:

Why should I or any other law abiding gun owner be further impacted? Go after the criminals not the law abiding gun owners. Law abiding. Look it up.

Almost without exception, mass shooters were “law abiding” before they snapped and slaughtered dozens. The vast majority of domestic shootings are committed by people who were “law abiding” before they snapped and killed their wife, or friends, or neighbors and so on.

The vast majority of gun violence in America is committed by people with no priors. And the easy access to guns enables this. The easy access to high-capacity weaponry weaponizes the person who snaps to kill dozens.

The guns themselves, being so prevalent, are a menace to all of us and take “freedom and liberty” away from us on a daily basis. Guns are the weapon of choice for rapists, kidnappers, thieves, terrorists, mass shooters, etc. High-capacity guns are the weapons of choice for mass shooters and terrorists.

Logic tells us we should make it radically tougher to obtain those weapons of mass destruction, and the best way to start is by banning them. Ban the manufacture, sale, import, export, trade and possession of those high-capacity guns. No citizen needs them. And no amendment protects the purchase or ownership of them.

It’s time to put the health and safety of the American people above the desire of a tiny minority that endangers all of us. It’s time to put human life first and foremost, radically ahead of the desire of that tiny minority to play with deadly pieces of metal.

Play? Far from it. Tell that to the victims of crime who are determined to protect themselves.

Billy_T wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

martin luther king defended our “freedoms” without lifting a single finger.

and honestly freedom is something we all have regardless of whatever restrictions society puts on our rights as a civilian.

that’s the freedom i’m more concerned about if that makes any sense.

Yeah, MLK!! A fellow leftist/socialist. Non-violence is the answer. A radical demilitarization of the nation is the answer. Top down. Not a bottom up arms race, led by fringe lunatics who think they need to keep up with advances in military firepower, because they dream of Wolverines and Red Dawn at night.

The answer is to radically deescalate, instead. End the glorification of guns in the media, by government, Hollywood, etc.. Shame the NRA into silence. Shame the even more vile GOA into silence. Demilitarize our police. Roll back our empire. Stop being World Cop. End our wars. No more wars of choice. Decriminalize and legalize drugs and victimless, non-violent “crimes.” Empty our jails of those incarcerated for those non-violent, victimless crimes. From the top down, preach peace, not violence and war. Preach non-violent conflict resolution, not resorting to guns. Preach democracy, not “2nd amendment remedies to the ballot box.”

It’s time our society shunned all those who preach violence, hate, gun-fetishism, worship of guns, worship of dead white slaveholders, etc. etc.

That would mean actual “freedom and liberty” for all. You can’t get there with guns.

Guns got you the freedom in the first place. I actually agree with and have posted before much of what you state in your second paragraph. I’m getting through to you, and that is good.

InvaderRam wrote:

martin luther king defended our “freedoms” without lifting a single finger.

and honestly freedom is something we all have regardless of whatever restrictions society puts on our rights as a civilian.

that’s the freedom i’m more concerned about if that makes any sense.

We already have enough restrictions. I support a few myself.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

You can’t wiggle away from that fact. When you want to change something that I can do now legally to make it illegal you are denying me the freedom I had before.

No.

You are limited when it comes to doing THAT anymore (though actually this one was banned before it was permitted.)

That does not mean your freedom IN GENERAL has been curtailed.

So the fact that they lowered speed limits nationally does not mean you leave in a dystopian slave state. And this is from someone who grew up in the country and used to drive more than a 100 on empty freeways at night while hanging out.

We dis-permit things all the time. Marijuana used to not be illegal. Now it is tenuously partly legal. Laws change on specific things without altering general freedom. Same with speed limits. I once drove cross state at 110 mph. Now I can’t.

One is not the other. Permitted to buy item X is not “freedom” writ large. (Unless it
s books I guess.) As I said equating the 2 is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

Not equivocation. Not at all. You do not have the right to a drivers license. That is conferred by the state. You do have your 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm. Big difference.

And you do not have the right to assault weapons. Certain interpretations of militia amendment have construed it that way, but that’s not universal.

Plus we make reasonable laws all the time restricting rights anyway. Freedom of speech is not absolute, for example.

And either way, just differing on whether or not the militia amendment grants private citizens the right to unregulated ownership of assault weapons is not a discussion of “freedom.” It’s a discussion of one particular type of action. “Freedom to buy guns without limit or restriction” is not the same as “freedom in general.”

You get much closer to limiting “freedom in general” when you restrict someone’s right to vote, which is directly and unambiguously guaranteed by the constitution…yet politicians all over the country try to limit that on a regular basis. Having a right to vote is fundamental to being a citizen of this democracy. Private citizens having big collections of fully usable military weapons is not fundamental to being a citizen, it’s just a “thing” some people have, like smoking dope is for others.

bnw wrote:

The militias at that time were an organic local response to a threat to the community.

Look up the history and avoid the nutcase propaganda that’s out there on that. Militias were organized by states and under the legal jurisdiction of state governors. Again that is what “well regulated” means and refers to.

Just for convenience here is the wiki on that:

The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,” as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: “To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” The Militia Act of 1792[17] clarified whom the militia consists of; “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.”

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was written with the history of the militia from the beginning whether the threat was Indian, French, Spanish etc. That history spanned 150 years BEFORE the Revolutionary War. Sure the militia was embraced by the new government but that doesn’t change the history behind the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

“When the British attempted to disarm the American populace during 1774-75, citizens formed private militias that were independent of the royal governors’ control.”

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

• This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by bnw.