Cindy Sheehan

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
michaeledward said:
I believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads

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.

So, if you are wearing the uniform of a Well Regulated Militia, and if you demonstrate how the Illinois permit 'infringes' on your right to sit in the street with your weapon ... You Betcha!

I'll get arrested for that.
It says that a well reglauted militia is neccessary for a free state. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shal not be infringed... not the right of aforementioned Milita. It has always been my belief that the wording in that did not secure the rights of the milita to bear arms, but rather for the people to bear arms so they may create the neccessary militia. Hence the "Rights of the People" as opposed to "The rights of the Militia"

Or does the term "People" in the constitution only refer to Milita? In which case, only the Milita has the right to peaceably to assemble... as that is also a right of the "people."

:p
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,920
Reaction score
1,434
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
michaeledward said:
I believe the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads

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.

So, if you are wearing the uniform of a Well Regulated Militia, and if you demonstrate how the Illinois permit 'infringes' on your right to sit in the street with your weapon ... You Betcha!

I'll get arrested for that.
See here

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 312 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty-GEorge Mason, Constitutional Convention
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."[/i[Zechariah Johnson[/i]
"The militia is the whole people, except for a few public officials" James Madison
Please do not get me started on this-you're wrong.(And it's a terrible bit of thread drift, ayway...)
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Technopunk said:
It says that a well reglauted militia is neccessary for a free state. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shal not be infringed... not the right of aforementioned Milita. It has always been my belief that the wording in that did not secure the rights of the milita to bear arms, but rather for the people to bear arms so they may create the neccessary militia. Hence the "Rights of the People" as opposed to "The rights of the Militia"

Or does the term "People" in the constitution only refer to Milita? In which case, only the Milita has the right to peaceably to assemble... as that is also a right of the "people."
The Amendement says what it says. The term 'people' in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not capitalized. It is not given any greater weight than any other word in the sentence. The 2nd Amendment to the constitution is one sentence. One 'Full stop', as the Brits say (or so I am led to believe). We can not pick and choose which clauses within the sentence we want to keep or discard. I agree the subject of the sentence is the word people, but I am not willing to disreguard the dependent clause.

So, let me concede for the moment that people make up a militia, and not the other way around.

Let us address the premise that the 'permit' required by the State of Illinois somehow 'infringes' upon your right to keep and bear arms.

We will notice that the 2nd Amendment does not say ... 'will create no law' ... (which is the wording of the 1st Amendment - although your argument in 12:04 post suggests the wording in the two amendments are the same). The only prohibition to the State (or City, or Federal Government) is that any law created concerning the right to keep and bear arms does not 'infringe' on that right.

Time to Show Cause.

What damage can you show, derived from the permit process?
How has your right been infringed?

Make no mistake .. if you can demonstrate how the Illinois permit process prohibits you from sitting a lawn with your weapon, I will be there to defend you; to be arrested; to protest the taking of your rights.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
michaeledward said:
The Amendement says what it says. The term 'people' in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not capitalized. It is not given any greater weight than any other word in the sentence. The 2nd Amendment to the constitution is one sentence. One 'Full stop', as the Brits say (or so I am led to believe). We can not pick and choose which clauses within the sentence we want to keep or discard. I agree the subject of the sentence is the word people, but I am not willing to disreguard the dependent clause.

So, let me concede for the moment that people make up a militia, and not the other way around.

Let us address the premise that the 'permit' required by the State of Illinois somehow 'infringes' upon your right to keep and bear arms.

We will notice that the 2nd Amendment does not say ... 'will create no law' ... (which is the wording of the 1st Amendment - although your argument in 12:04 post suggests the wording in the two amendments are the same). The only prohibition to the State (or City, or Federal Government) is that any law created concerning the right to keep and bear arms does not 'infringe' on that right.

Time to Show Cause.

What damage can you show, derived from the permit process?
How has your right been infringed?

Make no mistake .. if you can demonstrate how the Illinois permit process prohibits you from sitting a lawn with your weapon, I will be there to defend you; to be arrested; to protest the taking of your rights.
Tgace's point is exactly my point... Neither Illinois Gun laws, nor the local law that required the permit to gather were passed by congress.
 

Gene Williams

Green Belt
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
129
Reaction score
12
Location
Georgia
Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, a tired old hippie (or hippie wannabee; I don't know how old she is). Many such protests are supported by international socialist/communist organizations anyway and those of you who support them are just as stupid as she is, unless of course you are a communist/socialist, in which case have fun.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
-Moderator Note-

Please Keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Technopunk
MT Super Moderator
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Somewhere in that dusty old document, there is something about any powers not granted to the Federal Government belong to the State Government.

So, let us think about that idea in relation to the 1st Amendment.

Does the District of Columbia have the right to make a law prohibiting the peaceable assembly of the people? - Good question

Who makes the laws for the District? .... Isn't it Congress?

And is that a specific right --- not right, but instruction; 'shall make no law' --- directly granted to the Congress?

This argument can get a bit circular there, can't it? But it seems the instruction is directed at Congress, and Congress has jurisdiction. (Is there a different law-making body for the District of Columbia?)

Congress can make no law prohibiting the peaceable assembly of the people. Because Congress makes the laws for the District of Columbia, it would seem that a law requiring a permit to protest would a law related to the peaceable assembly ... and therefore unconstitutional.

You could, of course, argue that a law requiring a permit does not prohibit anything .... but it is, after all, a law.

If the protest was taking place in a State, I would suppose that the State Legislature could make a law requiring a permit ... although I'm fuzzy on that.


Concerning the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not explicitly empower the federal government law making abilities concerning the right to bear arms, therefore, any law making privileges related to keeping and bearing arms fall to the state, provided they are within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment. Again, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit laws. Thus, we can assume that any State enacted statute, that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is constitutional. Only if a state statute can be shown to infringe on keeping and bearing arms would a constitutional challenge be valid.


Rest assured Technopunk ... I would defend your rights just as vigorously. Somewhere around here, we used to have a Bill of Rights. It does, however, seem to be in short supply of late.


But come on guys, I don't think you guys need this basics civics stuff.


When our country arrests a little old lady for singing church hymns in front of the White House, we really have given away quite a bit, haven't we?
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Gene Williams said:
Cindy Sheehan is an idiot, a tired old hippie (or hippie wannabee; I don't know how old she is). Many such protests are supported by international socialist/communist organizations anyway and those of you who support them are just as stupid as she is, unless of course you are a communist/socialist, in which case have fun.
Hey Gene, since you don't seem to be using any of your rights at this time, perhaps you could give them to Ms. Sheehan ... or any of the other 100,000+ attendees of Sunday's gathering.

I'm wondering if anyone could recognize a real communist, or a real socialist if they met one.
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
I think you are partially in error there Mike....

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/

What is the difference between a public law and a D.C. law?
A public law is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President. A D.C. law is a District law passed by the Council, and upon approval of the Mayor, and completion of the Congressional review period, becomes effective.

Apparently the DC legislature writes and approves DC local law. Congress only has a review. They do not "pass" local law per se.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Tgace said:
I think you are partially in error there Mike....

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/

Apparently the DC legislature writes and approves DC local law. Congress only has a review. They do not "pass" local law per se.
Quite possible ... not being a resident, and only an occassional visitor, I have little experience with DC governance, just snippets picked up in news reports, and inferences based on those snippets.

Still, in the theoretical, it would seem such permits could present an opportunity for a Constitutional Challenge.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
michaeledward said:
Still, in the theoretical, it would seem such permits could present an opportunity for a Constitutional Challenge.
Maybe thats what she needs to do... use her arrest as a springboard to challenge that law and have it changed. Isnt the first step tword changing the law breaking it?

If not... oops, my bad. :D
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Quickly, I can think of three ways to change a law.
  • Petition the legislature.
  • Seek redress in the courts.
  • Dissolve the government and create a new one.
Thinking more slowly, she could write a book, which could start a war, which could end an injustice ... think Harriet Beecher Stowe.
 

tradrockrat

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
733
Reaction score
9
Location
my house
As much as i wanted to stay out of this thread, the tangent of constitutional law just sucked me in.


Here's my .02 cents

cent .01 - The lady is an idiot, and I think she's a disgrace

cent .02 - She's got the right to be a disgrace, and I think that under a strict intepretation of the Bill of Rights, she has the right to be there. HOWEVER, I also believe that the Constitution allows for the revisiting and modification of it's structure because the founding fathers knew that the the thing wasn't perfect and would need to be able to remain flexible and open to change. Having said that, why shouldn't she have to get a permit? And more importantly, why didn't she?

The answer is because it's not about her constitutional rights AT ALL! She knew this would happen and she planned for it and she counted on it. She thinks this makes for a more powerful soundbite, plain and simple. After all, did she not say OVER AND OVER again as they removed her, "The Whole world is watching?" Yes she did. She probably has delusions of granduer placing herself up there with real American Heroes like Martin Luther King and others who had a real reason for doing what they did, not just some feeling of self importance and a misguided attempt at noteriety.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
tradrockrat said:
I also believe that the Constitution allows for the revisiting and modification of it's structure because the founding fathers knew that the the thing wasn't perfect and would need to be able to remain flexible and open to change. Having said that, why shouldn't she have to get a permit?
Liberals don't tend to be confused with strict constructionalists ...

but if you're all for throwing out the Bill of Right, go right ahead. But the answer to the question is <drum roll please> The First Amendment.

'Congress shall make no law ... blah blah blah

tradrockrat said:
And more importantly, why didn't she?

The answer is because it's not about her constitutional rights AT ALL! She knew this would happen and she planned for it and she counted on it. She thinks this makes for a more powerful soundbite, plain and simple. After all, did she not say OVER AND OVER again as they removed her, "The Whole world is watching?" Yes she did. She probably has delusions of granduer placing herself up there with real American Heroes like Martin Luther King and others who had a real reason for doing what they did, not just some feeling of self importance and a misguided attempt at noteriety.
Well, She didn't get the permit (apart from the whole 1st Amendment issue) because she had every intention of getting arrested. Don't you think its just a little embarrasing to haul off a little old lady who just wants to deliver a message to the President?

I don't know how many times she said 'The Whole World is Watching'. And, sadly, I don't believe the whole word was watching. Check your local 'Fair and Balanced' liberal media outlet. Check to see how much space they gave to the 100,000 plus protest on the capital mall (in column inches, or air time) and compare it to the amount of space they gave to the 400 people gathered to protest the peace march and support the President. In all likelyhood, the two groups were given equal space and time. 100,000 to 400 given equal time ... that counts as 'Fair and Balanced', eh ... seems like a gift to the right wing.

And I am not going to ascribe to her delusions. I am going to take her at her word, that she would like to question the president "What is the Noble Cause for which her son gave his life?"
  • To Save America from Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Because Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11
  • Because Saddam Hussein was an evil man
  • To Transform the Middle East and Spread Democracy
  • Because other soldiers have died, more soldiers must die
The President has decided to not address Ms. Sheehan. That certainly is his perogative. I'm sure he has been far too busy destroying the careers of life-long civil servants to pay much attention. Either that, or he is hiding in Cheyanne Mountain. Ole Tin Ear deserves, certainly, to be taken to the woodshed for allowing Ms. Sheehan to gain such a political foothold; to allow her to become so well known that internet posters feel they can attack ad hominem.

I am also wondering what qualifies as a 'real reason' for protest? Do you think a tarrif on tea would qualify? How about forcing an old lady to sit in the back of the bus? Surely, if these qualify as a 'real reason' for protest, then the death of a loved on in an undeclared war should qualify, don't you think?

Oh, My, this was just going to be a quick little response.

Anyhow, if you feel you don't need any of your rights at the present time, please feel free to give them to me. Mine seem to be in short supply.
 

Gene Williams

Green Belt
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
129
Reaction score
12
Location
Georgia
michaeledward said:
Liberals don't tend to be confused with strict constructionalists ...

but if you're all for throwing out the Bill of Right, go right ahead. But the answer to the question is <drum roll please> The First Amendment.

'Congress shall make no law ... blah blah blah


Well, She didn't get the permit (apart from the whole 1st Amendment issue) because she had every intention of getting arrested. Don't you think its just a little embarrasing to haul off a little old lady who just wants to deliver a message to the President?

I don't know how many times she said 'The Whole World is Watching'. And, sadly, I don't believe the whole word was watching. Check your local 'Fair and Balanced' liberal media outlet. Check to see how much space they gave to the 100,000 plus protest on the capital mall (in column inches, or air time) and compare it to the amount of space they gave to the 400 people gathered to protest the peace march and support the President. In all likelyhood, the two groups were given equal space and time. 100,000 to 400 given equal time ... that counts as 'Fair and Balanced', eh ... seems like a gift to the right wing.

And I am not going to ascribe to her delusions. I am going to take her at her word, that she would like to question the president "What is the Noble Cause for which her son gave his life?"
  • To Save America from Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Because Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11
  • Because Saddam Hussein was an evil man
  • To Transform the Middle East and Spread Democracy
  • Because other soldiers have died, more soldiers must die
The President has decided to not address Ms. Sheehan. That certainly is his perogative. I'm sure he has been far too busy destroying the careers of life-long civil servants to pay much attention. Either that, or he is hiding in Cheyanne Mountain. Ole Tin Ear deserves, certainly, to be taken to the woodshed for allowing Ms. Sheehan to gain such a political foothold; to allow her to become so well known that internet posters feel they can attack ad hominem.

I am also wondering what qualifies as a 'real reason' for protest? Do you think a tarrif on tea would qualify? How about forcing an old lady to sit in the back of the bus? Surely, if these qualify as a 'real reason' for protest, then the death of a loved on in an undeclared war should qualify, don't you think?

Oh, My, this was just going to be a quick little response.

Anyhow, if you feel you don't need any of your rights at the present time, please feel free to give them to me. Mine seem to be in short supply.
Well, you are certainly exercising your right to be hysterical and reactionary to the max. Take another hit on the bong and tell us some more.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Gene Williams said:
Well, you are certainly exercising your right to be hysterical and reactionary to the max. Take another hit on the bong and tell us some more.
What a compassionate thing to say to a sober addict. Thanks.
 

Flatlander

Grandmaster
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,785
Reaction score
70
Location
The Canuckistan Plains
============================================
Mod Warning:

Please keep the discussion polite and civil. Sniping or general insults will not be tolerated. Please review Martial Talk's General Posting Rules for clarification.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Senior Moderator-
============================================
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top