HELP - need some info

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
Could use some help with debating this flamming liberal on our local newspapers forum.

Here is the topic, the gun debate is down somewhat in the topic.
http://interact.starnews.com/forums/Forum3/HTML/000742.html

Specifically need:

statistics on US vs Austrailian deaths

Quotes by the founding fathers on the right to keep and bear arms

Miller - how does this show that the RKBA is a 'state' right, counter arguments to that view.

Either post here or feel free to join in on that thread. I'm tired of banging my head against this particular wall for today. Need to get some work done and this persons views are just making me upset. Need to calm down, count to a million, and present some good arguments.

Look for my first post under Keith_M, the argument starts after that with bobu.

Thanks in advance...
Keith


[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited October 11, 2000).]
 
If you read the Miller descision, it said NOTHING about "state right". It said that "since there is no evidence that a short barrelled shotgun has a use in a militia, it is not protected under the 2nd Amendment..."

What that ruling REALLY means is that ANY firearm which IS USED in the military IS protected (for individual posession) under the 2nd.

But over the years, the meaning has been twisted into meaninglessness by the Anti's.
 
Direct them to the Yahoo message board for gun control, there is a lawyer there that LOVES to argue Miller.

The summary of the individual rights argument in Miller is this:

Miller presented no evidence at the first trial. The Supreme Court they stated that it
was not within judicial notice that short-barreled shotguns were useful to the militia. This means that no one had presented evidence that they were useful, it doesn't mean that the military didn't use
them.

It reversed and REMANDED the decision back to the lower court, instructing the lower court to hear evidence relating to whether possesion of the short-barrelled shotgun was related to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia and make a decision based on that.

The short individual rights argument: If the Second Amendment applies only to states and Miller clearly wasn't in a state militia - then he has no rights under the Second and there is no need for the court to review the case again. The only reason the court needed to review the case again is if Miller DOES have some individual (however limited) RKBA.

That's kind of a hacked up, summary version of the pro-rights argument but it should serve well.

As a side argument, you can accept his interpretation of Miller and ask him if he agreed with the Supreme Court's supreme interpretation the 4 separate times it upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal".
 
Keith,
I joined the fracas ;). I posted under RJD. I think bobu is a lost cause, but perhaps someone else will see the light be reading the posts.

------------------
Remember: First you pillage ... then you burn!
 
Thanks... my thoughts exactly. This "civil lawyer" is beyond hope but I do want to present the facts and let people make up their own mind. At least those that can still think for themselves.

Just read your reply and the clutching of straws from bobu. Typical of these rabid gun-control missionaries. (Calling them activists would be to kind, these people are fanatics.)

Peace...
Keith

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited October 11, 2000).]
 
KAM,
www.guncite.com has Miller ruling. At yahoo board, the poster Bart mentioned is 'legaleagle_45'. The key to Miller is:
1) it was a demmurmer
2) SC said it didn't have enough evidence about the SHOTGUN. All SC did was rule not enough evidence. They made no ruling on state's right vs. individual rights.

To really argue against antis, read ALL the pro briefs for Emerson. www.saf.org

madison46
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
KAM, I am there. I just spent 2 hours composing a response to bobu. Did I get him good?[/quote]

I think you got him pretty good all right. My guess is we won't be hearing any replies from bobu to that last post. The two posts from RJD and yours are the best reponses in the thread I thought.

Best yet, you provided plenty of proof to back up your view. The only thing I would have added is that Bobu deliberately misconstrued Miller to claim "Read it again, its talking that defendants' possession of shotguns had no relation to MILITIA, therfore 2d amendment does not apply!!!. "

The Supreme Court made no such finding. They simply stated that no evidence regarding the matter had been entered and instructed the court to retry the case so evidence pro/con could be presented.

By the way, the nslookup and question regarding Internet use was a gem! Can you believe the guy works for the EEOC?

[This message has been edited by Bartholomew Roberts (edited October 11, 2000).]
 
Yes, you've all done great... thank you

I doubt it will be the last we hear from this gun control fanatic. And to think they work in the goverment.

BTW nice post about the private use of the internet deal. I was pretty sure that was the case. Luckily we have a pretty broad policy at work.

I'm much better with arguing policy points then all the legal points. Thanks again for all your help, it's much appreciated.

Peace...
Keith

PS. We really need to get together sometime and do some shooting. I keep missing out due to various other obligations (like getting a dislocated finger and having to drive all day on First Monday.)
 
I went out and gave ol' Dodo ... er ... Bobu a howdy do and that started a third page on the thread. I'm wondering what his response, if any, will be.

By the way, anyone out there know what a "knive" is? Seems our "lawyer" doesn't have a good grasp of the English language. Probably because of public school poisoning.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Hey, someone hit bobu with the links below.

An article by Dave Kopel entitled "The Supreme Court's 35 OTHER gun cases - what they had to say".
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

A great breakdown of the Miller case, explaining the actual decision, how it is often miscited by lower courts and supporting its conclusions with facts.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Don Kates' rebuttal of the "collective rights" view advanced in the book "Gun Crazy"
http://www.law.emory.edu/ELJ/volumes/fall96/barnett.html
 
WOO-HOO!!!!! Did it again!!!! This took hours to respond to. I think I might have bobu. I am slaming him with so much, he has reverted to lower court rulings based on two pitiful lower court cases from the 1940's. Sure do wish Lawdog and Futo would let me know how I am doing. I could use some constructive critisism from our resident legal professionals. I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM WINNING!!!!!
 
Just read your post, now that is opening up with both barrels. I'll have to buy you a beer (or your favorite libation) when we meet. Or maybe a box or two of ammo...

I would love to hear the conversation between this civil lawer and their so-called, un-named "consititutional scholar."

Something tells me even if they do change their mind about Miller and the RKBA, they'll still be for gun-control, because it might save one child.

Thanks again for the help. (sniff) You guys remind me of the minutemen, ready to step up and defend liberty and the truth at a moments notice. The true patriots of this nation.

Peace...
Keith
 
Keith,

There is a compliment of which any American would be proud!

Well done, guys!

A tip o' the ole Stetson to ya!

(Give a friend a Shiner! ;) )

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
This guy Bobu is FOS. He claims he knows Clarence Thomas personally, as well as highly-regarded constitutional scholars (who he can't name of course) and is claiming he never heard of Emerson.

Anyone want to take bets on whether this is some low-level flake in the EEOC who is putting a little Al-Gore-style exaggeration on his role in life?

By the way Jeff, you must have blown him out of the water pretty good because he resorted to the standard anti tactic of claiming victory and running away. He didn't rebut any of the points you made other than to say "That's what the courts say Miller says and thats the way it is"

The closest he came to any attempt at rebuttal was to claim Printz had no relevance due to it being dicta.
 
By the way Jeff, you must have blown him out of the water pretty good

THANKS!!! I am having fun with him. Just posted a rebuttal to his comment and it looks like I forcing him to use up much of his time with reading.

because he resorted to the standard anti tactic of claiming victory and running away.

I don't thing that is going to work in this case. He is going to be forced to answer my statements. I have to let them build up enough so I am able to enumerate 40 or 50 that he has not responded to. The longer he waits the bigger the build up.

He didn't rebut any of the points you made other than to say "That's what the courts say Miller says and thats the way it is"

That is why I disagreed with his interpretation of how the courts interpreted Miller, showing either where the courts erred or where they used Miller as intended, a restriction on the hardware not the people.

The closest he came to any attempt at rebuttal was to claim Printz had no relevance due to it being dicta.

I am going to work on that, but first I have to figure out what it means. I am not an attorney, I only play one on the internet.
 
God bless the internet...

dictum
n. Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis for judgment. The standard counter argument is: "it is only dictum (or dicta)."
http://dictionary.law.com/

Hope that helps...
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
I am going to work on that, but first I have to figure out what it means. I am not an attorney, I only play one on the internet.[/quote]

Try hanging out at the Yahoo forum for Gun Control debate. The poster named legaleagle_45 is a practicing lawyer and has taught law. He also has an interest in the Second Amendment and loves to discuss the Miller case. Even if you are pretty familiar with Miller and assorted cases, he can definitely give you some useful pointers.
 
I hope I didn't confuse him too badly. I gave him a circular argument that may have him mesmerized. Might be fun to keep him in a loop for eternity.

Based on Article I, Section 10, para 3.

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, ... keep troops, or Ships of War in time of peace, ..."

ie: The States have to have the permission from Congress to do what is otherwise prohibited to them; but the Second Amendment prevents the Congress from disarming the States who need their permission to be so equipped in the first place. (start over from beginning of sentence and repeat to infinity)

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
To you all, MEGA KUDOS for a superb job! You may not turn him, but you have certainly given others food for thought.

JeffOTMG, way to shut him up. Let him do his research, I would be surprised if he comes back to post against what you have offered. If he does come back and has had a change of heart, he will have more backbone than most anti's I know.

Jim, great circular argument!

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com

Do it for the children...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top