Kinda makes ya want to go to Harvard, don't it?

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by Outlaw, Jul 29, 2015.

  1. Outlaw

    Outlaw Supporting Member

  2. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    He keeps harping on "well regulated" as meaning "controlled through legislation," a theory which has already been squashed by SCOTUS ruling. This is something he should, and likely does, already know.

    This is not going anywhere. I susupect it's just more internal propaganda to the anti-gun faithful. Expect to see more of this as the POTUS election gears up. The goal isn't to actually effect change, it's to mobilize the base.

    Peace favor your sword,

  3. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    The funny thing is that the harder they work to mobilize their base, the harder they end up mobilizing ours, too. Our own mobilization efforts don't necessarily end up enthusing the opposition that way, though. The fervor to support a right is always stronger than the fervor to crush it.

    It reminds me of a story that I read in elementary school. It was about the Sun and the wind trying to see which could get a cloak off of a man's back.

    The wind blew and blew, as it tried to tear the cloak from his fingers, but the harder it blew, the tighter he held on to it. The Sun, however, just heated things up a bit. At that point, he uncooked the clasp and removed it because he was sweating.

    Any efforts to mobilize the anti-gun base will make us hold on harder.
  4. I believe I've read and studied every SOCTUS ruling that is about the militias of the several state. Unless there is a ruling I missed, I don't think there has ever been a ruling about what you say.

    What they have said is that the people's RKBA isn't dependent on legislation that says they 'have to do so'. See Heller.

    In Crinksaw(sp?) SCOTUS states that a state/local government can't disarm the able bodied, as they make up the 'reserve militia' of the Fed gov.

    In Miller SCOTUS states that the the Fed gov can't regulate arms that would useful for 'an effective' militia use.

    In a nutshell:
    1. No level of government can disarm the people nor deprive them of arms.
    2. The lack of either the state or the Fed gov specing standard modern military arms we must own, by default allows each of us to decide what arms each of us should have.
  5. Guys who think like him don't realize that even at the hint that they might use this to disarm the people, the people in many states would force their state to at least spec modern arms that the militiamen in that state should have. A state is perfectly free to do this as part of 'regulating' it's militia and the SC as stated that.

    If those of like mind with him then pushed it to were these militiamen had to be actively enrolled in a militia process arms, those same states would then revitalize the state militia they are required to have.

    Collectively these states would have millions of actively enrolled militiamen. They would a large enough voting group to decide what arms the people should have.

    At that point in 2nd Amendment sections of forums the thread and would only be about if a BAR is still an effective arm, how many spare barrels should one have for their MG42, the best way to mount a 37mm anti-aircraft gun in the back of F150 Ford pickup, why a Ford Ranger is the best for mounting a 106 recoilless rifle to, potato masher vs pineapple, etc.

    Plus the weekly, 'Check out xxxxxxx, they have RPG-7's on sale. Buy one and get a case of rocket propelled grenades for free. Plus an M4 at 1/2 price. Limit 3 per customer.'

    I'm sure that the 2nd Amendment sections would go from now general agreement to a lot of bickering.

    The leftists are getting desperate to survive. They are putting zero thought into what they are doing and speeding up their demise.

    We really should just spec militia arms and revitalize the state militias now. We will end up doing it anyway and there is no time like the present. As soon as we do it, gun control will be a dead issue for at least 50-100 years. Then we would have more money and time of whatever, including the pursuit of happiness.

    FWIW. There are several other practical reasons to have state militias again. Besides to just ensure that we put paid on the anti-RKBA.
  6. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    I stopped reading after this gem:

  7. slade601

    slade601 Member

    I feel as if I may be harmed today, would you mind if i borrowed that firearm for a few hours? I'll bring it right back!!
  8. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    The Majority Opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller held that:
    Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

    Thus, Professor Dershowitz's repeated implication that "well regulated" implies "legal restrictions instituted and 'regulated' by laws" is false, as I wrote, SCOTUS "squashed" that theory, and Professor Dershowitz darn well KNOWS this. Therefore, his continuing use of this theory which has already been rejected by SCOTUS must be for some other reason. It can't be for actual legal use because SCOTUS has already nut-kicked it and he knows this. His repeated use of the theory must, therefore, be targeted at people who don't know it. IOW, this is nothing more than internal re-marketing to anti-gun lunatics who didn't read the Heller decision. The timing would indicate that it's intended to fire up the base in the run up to a POTUS election much the same way that a Neo-Nazi candidate might try to whip up his target audience by blathering about reintroducing Segregation.

    Peace favor your sword,
  9. GulfCoastGuy

    GulfCoastGuy Member

    IOW a marginally crafted attempt at deception; and deception being the beating heart of a lie - lets call it what it is - lies. But isn't that what shysters do?
  10. Outlaw

    Outlaw Supporting Member

    Plus the weekly, 'Check out xxxxxxx, they have RPG-7's on sale. Buy one and get a case of rocket propelled grenades for free. Plus an M4 at 1/2 price. Limit 3 per customer.'

    You see that on "Gunbroker" or "Midway"? I can't find it anywhere :confused:
    Dammit! I must have missed it :mad:
  11. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    Scene 1: A man walks into a police station.

    Man: I have a distinct fear that someone is trying to kill me. May I borrow a gun?

    Police Officer: Sir, why do you fear for your life?

    Man: I live in a neighborhood that has gone downhill, and there are drug dealers on the street who are breaking into homes and robbing people at night.

    Police Officer: Alright, then, it sounds like you have a legitimate need for a gun. Sign here to receive it.

    Man: Thanks. Hey, by the way, because we aren't allowed to own guns, this is the first time that I've ever actually touched one. How do I load it?

    Scene 2: The man walks into his home and loads the gun like the nice police man taught him. He then proceeds to have a negligent discharge and shoot himself in the foot.

    Scene 3: A news reporter stands in front of his house.

    Reporter: This is the scene of the latest incident in which someone has accidentally shot himself or someone else with a borrowed gun. This program is reckless and puts too many lives at risk. We need to end it now--for the children!

    Me: There are just too many other ways for this one to play out badly. Doucheowitz should just turn in his law license. Anyone who could come up with the idea that people should just borrow a gun from the police if in danger, is just too stupid to practice. A face palm doesn't even begin to express how ludicrous that idea is.
  12. You have made an err in reading Heller. What quote from it isn't what the SCOTUS held in Heller. Without using the legal term, what you quote them stating is them giving one of the reasons that they decided Heller the way they did.

    While what they stated for reasons that they decide as they did carries very great weight in the field of law, it isn't absolute and what you quote can come up again to being questioned.

    That is why SCOTUS didn't squash 'well regulated' from the 2nd Amendment. What Heller decided was that an individual has the right own and use a functional firearm for any normal purpose above and beyond for reasons solely for ones militia duty.

    The Fed and state governments are still free to organize, by passing laws, the militiamen in the several states.

    As SCOTUS hasn't squashed 'well regulated', the word 'regulated' will still be used as a reason that the gov can pass strong gun control laws. Then the people have to get rid of that law, one way or the other.

    For SCOTUS to squash 'well regulated' from being used as gun control it would have to directly decide, as opposed to stating, that 'well regulated' doesn't apply to personal firearms that aren't kept as part of being armed as part of ones militia duty.

    It isn't likely that SCOTUS will do this any time soon. What Dershowitz is doing is keeping gun control going and wasting our time/money until we take it off the table by having our states pass laws that spec our arms we need to keep as part of our militia duty.

    Reading laws/court decisions and saying what it says isn't like reading something like a history book and saying what that book said. It's a different kettle of fish.

    Maybe you've missed it, but there is a reason that when say what was in a SCOTUS decision sometimes I post that such-and-such 'stated or said' something and at other times I post that it 'decided' something. When I post they 'stated or said' this or that it is something that carries very great weight and is extremely difficult to go against, but it can be. When I post they 'decided' something it is the final word on the matter.

    I don't mean to be nit picky, but law is like most computer programming languages and one little detail can make or break it. The things we need to careful about not finding comfort in something that isn't exactly true. This can lead to us letting our guard down.

    Nor am I in any way saying that you are not capable of being able to learn to read and understand these things, I know you just haven't spent much time doing so yet. Nor do I any way mean to negatively criticize you.
  13. You will see it when you get a state militia again. If you really want your full 2nd Amendment rights, you need to start backing the revitalization of the state militias.