Know you opponent's argument

f-pig

Inactive
http://www.bradycampaign.com/xshare/pdf/reports/saf.pdf

The above link is to the Brady Campain's argument's regarding the Parker / Heller. They have very good, sound, and well-documented arguments. After their flamboyant first few paragraphs, the get into some strong, articulate arguments. It is well worth reading to know both sides.

I had mostly read only our side's arguments before and was thinking we had a good chance at winning the Supreme Court case. Now I would not be surprised if we lose this case, but I hope we win. I can see it going either way.

Both sides have twisted history and facts to their side.
 
The trouble with Brady's argument, and so the Miller decision they love hanging their hat on, is that WE KNOW they are wrong.

Does not matter how the USSC erred in Miller, we know they did. It only takes 1/2 hour on the internet to find out exactly what the framers and ratifiers had in mind with regards to the 2nd amendment. Their own words, AND more importantly the words of the amendment itself lays the proof. That is that THE PEOPLE, as individuals AND yes, as the Militia, have a right to keep and bear arms. That right secured by the 2nd is now and always was "private", "personal" "inherent" & "absolute".

James Madison HR: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Mr Sherman: The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not;

Rep Fisher Ames Sen: "Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments ....The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people."

Senator William Grayson: "Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty"

Letter from Joseph Jones to James Madison, June 24, 1789: the amendments are "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people ...."

Representative William L. Smith : "The Committee on Amendments have reported some, which are thought inoffensive to the Federalists & may do some good on the other side .... There appears to be a disposition in our house to agree to some, which will more effectually secure private rights, without affecting the structure of the Government."

SAMUEL ADAMS ... "And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms

Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania: objected that the [religious] exemption would mean that "a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the Constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms"

James Jackson of Georgia: "the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms".

Jeremiah Wadsworth of Connecticut: "Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third, armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them?" Masters would assist apprentices, and "as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnishing them with arms themselves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them reclaimed."

************

If they want to lay so much on previous USSC rulings, then use this one: The Dred Scott decision:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

The feds want to usurp power and change the definition of the Militia, and so complicate the Militia Clauses & the 2nd - not much i can do about that, but it still does not give any power to constitutionally infringe on a inalienable & secured right of the people.

Besides, it is federal LAW already that the 2nd secures an individual right, and that too is part of the law of the land. So other then agreeing that the decision in Miller says I should have uninfringed rights to M16s, M4s, Thompsons, BARS, &c., the Bradys can kiss my butt.
 
Back
Top