Supreme Court will be taking the issue of the 2nd amendment head on...

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
176
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
Hmm.

This isn't a discussion I take part in lightly--those of you who know me, knowing of me what you do, will understand why this strikes such a deep chord with me, over and above the obvious 2nd Amendment apprehension.

Almost a year ago, I joined the Massachusetts State Guard (www.mastateguard.com). It's existed officially since 1863 and unofficially since 1620.

Basically, The MASG are what the very same Minutemen of Revolutionary days literally evolved into, and in spirit, so are the other 27 still-existing State Guards in the US.

It's the same function that the Minutemen performed: We are all volunteer, we recieve no pay and no benefits for our service, we all have other jobs, we maybe don't train as often, we maybe don't have the best equipment, but we're there to do what must be done till the regular forces have time to mobilize, just the same.

So you see.....being, basically, a direct part of that lineage, why this situation troubles me so.

Well, I know what my spiritual forebears would have said to the question of the right to bear arms, because historical records of the battles of Lexington and Concord tell us just exactly what they DID say......."Bang".

I'll give you the idea in a nutshell:

After the passage in 1774 of the Intolerable Acts by the British Parliament, unrest in the colonies increased. The British commander at Boston, Gen. Thomas Gage , sought to avoid armed rebellion by sending a column of royal infantry from Boston to capture colonial military stores at Concord. News of his plan was dispatched to the countryside by Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott. As the advance column under Major John Pitcairn reached Lexington, they came upon a group of militia (the Minutemen). After a brief exchange of shots in which several Americans were killed, the colonials withdrew, and the British continued to Concord. Here they destroyed some military supplies, fought another engagement, and began a harried withdrawal to Boston, which cost them over 200 casualties.

Forget any grade school bull**** about "Taxation without Representation" being what kicked off the war....that was indeed a contested "hot button" issue at the time, but we didn't fight, we didn't commit to *war* until they came to take our guns.


And so the mere fact that this issue must be taken before the Supreme Court at all leaves me in doubt as to just how much of America is left.

At this stage there is nothing written in stone as to how the future will go. It may yet still be saved.

But I'll be honest with you, I'm more than a little bit pissed that it has had to come to this, and all because there are so many Americans who seem to be just so apathetic about issues, or have no brain of their own to think with rather than just parrot what the media and politicians say about "gun control", or who know just exactly what is going on and would so willingly go along with it despite what our forebears had to go through to get this Republic to start with.And this, despite having several examples in just the last century alone of what happens when you do it.

And politicians of either party who have forgotten their duty is to the people and not themselves, and who circle like sharks over any political football they can get hold of for their own ends.

I have had the misfortune to be born and raised in Massachusetts.

I say "misfortune" because I should have every right to be able to be proud of living in the state where so much history had its birth. The state which once had the right to be called "The Cradle of American Liberty" for its citizens' willingness to fight excessive taxation, stand up for their right to take up arms, and be treated like human beings.

And instead I must grit my teeth in disgust at the bitter irony that the place of my birth is now among the most anti-gun, ultraliberal, financially oppressive, tax-ridden sinkholes of evil a person can live in in this country, twisted, warped, and corrupted the full 180 degrees away from what it was meant to be.


I'm not gonna lie, it literally hurts to see it this way, and the general population, totally undeserving of the privilege of being called American citizens, all wrapped up in themselves and all too willing to keep electing and reelecting the same breed of shark politicians that make it so.

It's at the point now where i feel I cannot have any sort of happy future life continuing to reside here, and am gone at my first chance.

But then--If this issue is going to the Supreme Court--and if they vote WRONG.....................

...then there will be NO place in America I will be able to feel I can have any sort of happy future life, because if the one thing that makes America fundamentally different from any other Western nation is taken away, America basically no longer exists at all. And I don't know if I could take seeing that happen.

Until I know what will happen, I think at this time I am going to decline public comment as to what I might or might not do in the event the Supreme Court should vote wrongly.

Granted, it isn't set in stone what will occur, but being who I am, how can I not feel apprehension at this?

But not every state is as irretrieveable as Massachusetts.

And not every American is undeserving of his/her citizenship.

And even a shark can bite off more than it can chew.
 

lhommedieu

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
655
Reaction score
20
Location
East Northport, N.Y.
Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment

Nice. I like the quotes by Jefferson, and Washington, particularly. Will's article, which I referenced above, depends upon this original meaning of the word "militia." It will be interesting to listen to the arguements made before the Court.

Best,

Steve
 

Bigshadow

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
4,033
Reaction score
45
Location
Saint Cloud, Florida
Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment

Awesome article!
icon14.gif
 

bydand

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
32
Location
West Michigan
Many folks don't understand the language that the 2nd Amendment was written in, & I believe that this is the main source of contention over the issue of gun ownership. This article explains things in a concise and somewhat entertaining manner.
We Don't Need No Stinking 2nd Amendment

Thank you for the link. It is nice to see it in print. I will be following this real close, I know how I would hope and pray that the Court goes with the decision.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
What I find interesting is the fact that people concentrate on the meaning of the word militia. Why is that? Because ultimately it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, for a definition of what people means, one need only look at the other amendments, such as the fourth:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, based on this, it shows the the individual has the right, not an organized militia. Otherwise, only specific groups of people have the right to be secure in their possessions, not the individual.
 

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
Now, for a definition of what people means, one need only look at the other amendments, such as the fourth:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, based on this, it shows the the individual has the right, not an organized militia. Otherwise, only specific groups of people have the right to be secure in their possessions, not the individual.

it's pretty sad when all of us can properly interpret the Constitution but a bunch of folks with ivy league degrees can't. (of course, that just feeds my personal belief that they know what the 2nd Amendment means, they just want to take our rights away anyway because they're a bunch of commie filth)
 
OP
Cruentus

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
130
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
it's pretty sad when all of us can properly interpret the Constitution but a bunch of folks with ivy league degrees can't. (of course, that just feeds my personal belief that they know what the 2nd Amendment means, they just want to take our rights away anyway because they're a bunch of commie filth)

This is true, I think, in that they know how this was originally intended. I think that what happens is that many people let their desires of what they want and how they think things should be superceed the integrity of their arguments.
 

dart68

Orange Belt
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
2
Location
Lakewood, CO
What I find interesting is the fact that people concentrate on the meaning of the word militia. Why is that? Because ultimately it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, for a definition of what people means, one need only look at the other amendments, such as the fourth:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, based on this, it shows the the individual has the right, not an organized militia. Otherwise, only specific groups of people have the right to be secure in their possessions, not the individual.

I've actually read articles by antis that state that the meaning of people in the other amendments is not the same as in the 2nd! All I want to know is ... who's been spiking their crack?
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
I've actually read articles by antis that state that the meaning of people in the other amendments is not the same as in the 2nd! All I want to know is ... who's been spiking their crack?


I have never heard that. From my understanding, the issue has always been over the definition of militia.

If we cant even agree on the definition of words, then people will never get anywhere.

Can anyone say 1984...???
 

Bigshadow

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
4,033
Reaction score
45
Location
Saint Cloud, Florida
Funny thing, back in those day, the military arms were the same as the arms that the people used. It could also be interpreted by a stretch that the founder fathers intended that the people have the same arms as any standing army. Of course nowadays, there is a big difference the arms of civilians and those of the military.
 
OP
Cruentus

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
130
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
Funny thing, back in those day, the military arms were the same as the arms that the people used. It could also be interpreted by a stretch that the founder fathers intended that the people have the same arms as any standing army. Of course nowadays, there is a big difference the arms of civilians and those of the military.

That is an interesting argument or topic, probably worthy of it's own thread. Philisophically speaking, we need to at least be able to to own what could equalize a threat (that being pistols and long guns). Insurgents can run around with AK-47s and be a threat equalizer, for example; there is no reasonable expectation that they will overthrow the government(s) in charge, but they are able to fight back and create civil unrest until things are changed.

I don't really know how far it should go with what we can own (can we buy tanks, for example). I just know that at the very least, we have the right to have unrestricted to the basics.
 

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
Funny thing, back in those day, the military arms were the same as the arms that the people used. It could also be interpreted by a stretch that the founder fathers intended that the people have the same arms as any standing army. Of course nowadays, there is a big difference the arms of civilians and those of the military.

I don't think it's any "stretch" at all. AFAIC, the most protected firearm in existence should be the select-fire M-16 since that IS what our military is using.

This issue came up in U.S. v. Miller in 1939 when a man was charged (under the unconstitutional NFA of '34) with unlawful possession of a "short-barreled" shotgun. Miller claimed that this law interferred with his 2A-rights.
Unfortunately, Miller's lawyer never even showed up when it came time to argue before the USSC and they ruled against him
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

It's too bad his lawyer couldn't be bothered to appear or he might have been able to tell the court what a "Trench Gun" was (I'm sure there were plenty of "doughboys" slogging through trenches in France carrying shotguns with barrels less than 18")
 

Doc_Jude

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
36
Location
Southern Kalifornia
I don't think it's any "stretch" at all. AFAIC, the most protected firearm in existence should be the select-fire M-16 since that IS what our military is using.
Correct. Anyone that reads the Federalist Papers & the writings of the Framers understands that the 2nd Amendment was written exactly as it was to protect the People's ability to defend themselves from unjust rule, oppressive government, foreign invasion, and criminal elements.
Besides the fact that most civilians owned weapons that were better than what was being issued to the Organized Militia or Standing Armies.

It's too bad his lawyer couldn't be bothered to appear or he might have been able to tell the court what a "Trench Gun" was (I'm sure there were plenty of "doughboys" slogging through trenches in France carrying shotguns with barrels less than 18")
Word.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,849
Reaction score
1,084
Location
Michigan
-Bump-

This link is to the brief that was filed by D.C. I'm only up through page 17 but I already feel like I'm going to puke...gun-grabbing bastards :rpo:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/petitioners-brief-in-dc-v-heller.pdf




Based upon the table of contents and a glance through the document, if the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia. I will be calling my representative and senator to explain to them that if they grant the electoral college and or representation to those in DC they are in violation of the US Constitution. As ruled and extrapolated by the US Supreme Court.

I think if enough people complain that their ruling has now opened a door to nullify the Constitution completely in D.C. it might make people open their eyes and look and think.

Also, if it is required to have a state militia I wonder if they will allow for the old volunteers to come back. Heck if I have to go out and practice every weekend or a couple of times a month to be able to have a M4 in my house as a part of a regulated militia to be able to have hand guns.

I still need to read more, but I also agree that it is not looking good.

Very sad now. :(
 

Latest Discussions

Top