9th Circuit: Individuals don't have the right to own firearms.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
The 9th Cir. must be wrong.

That's an axiom.

PS CBeast!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Considering Marx's views on religion, I should say so.

Well, there are those who think commie = commie = commie, without realizing that there are substantial differences. Pointing at the Soviet Union when arguing with someone who believes in creating a community in Christ is about as ridiculous as pointing at the evils of Mao to Trotskyist. Like, we know.

[Ned]

Well, Che, since the purpose of Second Amendment is to to preserve a "free" State, I woudl argue it would be entirely constitutional to deny the right of keeping and bearing arms to communists.

[chequita guevara]

Ned, you are ignoring that fact that at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the army consisted of less than 6,000 people. It existed to provide a framework for the state militias, who, at the time, were composed of every able-bodied man. Up until the First World War, the bulk of US armed forces came from civilian militias, hence the reason we hear names like the 54th Massachuesetts Regiment, etc.

Civilians were the first line of defence against foreign powers. We were also the first line of defence against insurrection. Where do you think the soldiers came from when Washington called up troops to fight the Whiskey Rebellion? Congress definately meant for the main defence of the United States to be the armed people.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
about as ridiculous as pointing at the evils of Mao to Trotskyist. Like, we know.

Trotsky's views on the moral value of State terrorism make for a more appealing troll target than Mao does when argueing with a Trotskyist. I'll grant you that much.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Che, since the purpose of Second Amendment is to to preserve a "free" State, I woudl argue it would be entirely constitutional to deny the right of keeping and bearing arms to communists.

That is why civilian militias were largely abolished following the Great Labor Uprising of 1877.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Trotsky's views on the moral value of State terrorism make for a more appealing troll target than Mao does when argueing with a Trotskyist. I'll grant you that much.

One of these days I'm gonna have to read that book.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One of these days I'm gonna have to read that book.

I thought that you had given the way you have explained it to me a few times.

[chequita guevara]

Dude, that is so not CBEAST. That's LXBeast.

I know what the book is about and I've read critiques of it. I haven't come across an actual copy, however. I could probably read it online, but I hate reading online books.

[Ned]

Che, the very text of the Constitution distinquishes between the Army and the Militia. They are not the same. They may be called up by the president. But they are guaranteed to exist independently by the second amendment.

I understand your point about 1877. Very prudent.

[loinburger]

I don't understand why people are always so down on guns. They're cool, dammit! If it weren't for guns (with a nod to 'splosions and T&A) I'd never go to the movies anymore.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, the very text of the Constitution distinquishes between the Army and the Militia. They are not the same. They may be called up by the president. But they are guaranteed to exist independently by the second amendment.

The doesn't negate my point. Yes, the US has to have an Army and Navy, but the Framers envisioned that these would be very small, and suplimented by the state/civilian militias. The Framers wanted the defense of the US in the hands of the people, so that they could keep the military small, and thus not a threat to the republic. They were rightly concerned about a general setting himself up as military dictator. Up until WWI, the bulk of the military during wartime was supplied by the various states. Teddy Roosevelt was the commander of one suh unit during the Spanish-American War.

Remember, our government was set up by idealists, who believed very strongly in republican ideals and the citizen-stateman-soldier. The Republic should be defended by the citizens and not mercenaries in their eyes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I understand your point about 1877. Very prudent.

Yeah, ten thousand armed workers marching down Michigan Ave. tends to make the bourgeoisie nervous. It was in the 1880s that the militia system was largely abandoned and the National Guards came into existence.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by korn469


Zkribbler

Since the state as a whole can only lose its freedom to the government or an invader, and not an individual that means gun ownership exists to keep people free from state instituted tyranny. A single individual cannot threaten the security of the entire state with firearms, some horrible biological super weapon yes, but not not firearms. It seems quite clear that the second amendment exists to counteract a government that would oppress its people, and it also seems quite clear that having an armed populace capable of defending their nation would mean that there wouldn't be a need for a standing army.

The framers were worried about a federally instituted tyranny. That is why they wanted a well regulated state militia. An armed populous would permit a well regulated state militia. The 9th Circuit was therefore acting logically when it declared the rights under the 2nd Amendment flow to the several states, not to individuals.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by loinburger
I don't understand why people are always so down on guns. They're cool, dammit! If it weren't for guns (with a nod to 'splosions and T&A) I'd never go to the movies anymore.

Hmmmm, maybe we need to amend the 2nd Amendment:

Lots of gunfire and explosions, being necessary to the making of really cool movies, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.