The ACLU is worried about your privacy. Over the top, or legitimate concern? (Demo)

Almost forgot....

No one here would argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the American public to be unarmed as the Government is slowly attempting to do('34,'68,'86,and '94).I have no doubts that had the Clinton Ban been upheld, then in another 3 years we would have seen the "Firearms Owners Protection act of '06 or '07 that would make you register all arms and get an Id so that the government can return them to you if they are stolen :barf:. Sorry for that little off topic rant but we can also agree that a firearm is not the same as an explosive device. Witch would you rather be shot with One round from an M-16 or one from the M-2o3 underneath it ?????? :eek:
 
Since explosive devices, as defined by BATF, didn't exist at the time the framers wrote the bill of rights, they aren't covered by the second amendment, is that what I understand? Following that logic, free speech can only be guaranteed in a newspaper or in person, not in any of the then uninvented methods of modern communication. The ACLU fights to expand free speech but thinks arms only are guaranteed to the National Guard. Something about this appears inconsistent to me.
 
Ordnance 101

"Can someone name for me any explosive devices that the colonists possesed [sic]! Not one by todays BATF standards. Cannons Dont Count as they don't actually use exploding 'munitions [sic] ( they are however destructive devices)."

No "exploding 'munitions" in artillery! Really?

Define the following:

1. Shrapnel;

2. Spherical case; and

3. Shell

as said terms refer to artillery projectiles, and then tell us again how "Cannons Dont [sic] Count." The obvious evidence proves otherwise. ;)
 
jailmedic:

1. I do not subscribe to the theory that the definition of militia has "changed" with the passage of time, for The National Guard is not now, nor was it ever The Militia. The Militia was and remains "The People", who by the way, were armed with weapons of their own.

2. All this business about mortars, artillery pieces, nuclear weapons, torpedos, rockets is so much crap, in my view. The weaponry that The Militia would be armed with would be, items similar or identical to those that the individual infantryman would carry. These days, that would be a rifle of some sort, selective fire or otherwise, light automatic weapons, sub-machine guns if you will, and probably a handgun. If an individual chose to lug grenades, more power to them.

3. As for the drawing of lines, I earned my livinmg as a draftsman/designer for many years, and I believe that I'm still capable of drawing my own lines.
 
Cannons don't count Number 6

Consider the shell from an M1 tank(those depleted uranium ones). Does it contain one ounce of propellant? Does the damage from the round come from the explosive packed "war head"? No. They are(in my limited understanding) deadly because they are dense. If the projectile does not contain any propellant/explosive then it is essentially a large bore gun(aka cannon). I still fail to see your point unless you have more to add to your post because shrapnel can be produced simply by the energy dump of a heavy metalic projectlile into something. Without any explosives...... believe it or not :p. Now if you would like to show me something other than your ability to spell "sic"(that actually validates your point) I don't mind being wrong because being wrong is the only way to learn sometimes...... again believe it or not. Are we arguing semantics here? I literally mean the old school black powder beasts that had to be packed and hand loaded and set of by fuse of some sort. :confused:
 
Alan....

My point was that the definition of the "militia" was not universally established even at the time of the drafting of the Consititution, ergo it is still not clearly of one definition except in your mind. Believe me, I wish that it wa a settled case, but you must admit, as far as the courts it is something to be avoided, not confronted?
The fact that certain military ordnance did not exist at the time of the Frmaer's discussions does not exclude it from consideration.
I ask again, does anyone think that any citizen should be able to own any piece of military hardware without any constraints from the Feds whatsoever?
 
First of all, where did the idea come from that the colonists didn't have explosive devices, or at least, couldn't have made them? Hand grenades, in the form of an hollow iron ball packed with gunpowder with a fuze attached have been around for a few centuries and explosive artillery shells, including shrapnel shells, were known to the armies of the late 18th century. I found this information in my copy of Weapons, An International Encyclopedia from 5000 BC to 2000 AD, Updated Edition, by The Diagram Group. The explosives we have today are merely refinements of those earlier weapons.
And I think the cost of artillery and ammunition for them would make it prohibitively expensive for the common citizen to own so government restrictions may not be entirely necessary to regulate ownership in the first place. Besides, making your own pipe bombs is relatively easy and can be as destructive as a hand grenade. And we all know a federal building was annihilated with nothing but off the shelf products. If someone wants to blow s!$# up, they don't need to have artillery to do it.
 
Do your research!

"I literally mean the old school black powder beasts that had to be packed and hand loaded and set of by fuse of some sort."

So do I. And those "old school black powder beasts" used each of the three (3) types of ordnance I identified. Find a Civil War reenactment battery and ask about the available projectiles, do an internet search, go to the library or watch "The Civil War" when PBS rebroadcasts it in your area. ;)

In one sense, you are right - cannon are outside the scope of the Second Amendment as one cannot "bear" cannon (this leaves bazookas and their ilk in a gray area, of course).

Note that the USSC said in its Miller decision that the militia, when called to service, should come "bearing arms provided by themselves and of the type in common use at the time" (as close as I can recall the quote). How many people have a fieldpeice in their yards? :D
 
Thanx I will try to google the imfo....

If you have anywhere in particular I could look that would help.....If they are handing weapons they can keep the artillery and give me a quad .50(does that much lead qualify as artillery...hmmm) :D lol
 
Jailmedic:

It was my impression that The Militia Act, circa 1792 or thereabouts had defined the militia adequately. Perhaps I'm wrong though.
 
The problem is that if the ACLU started to support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, (which it obviously is) they would lose alot of their "politically left" fanbase. And they don't want nonna dat.

I work with a guy who has a Che Guevara poster in his office and an ACLU sticker on his car. He's not a dumb guy. Far from it. He also holds a Doctorate. A very nice guy all around. He really hates Bush though. Patriot Act and all. He's one of the most politically vocal in the agency. Loves his democrats. I mentioned to him in a email that it was 8 democrats who had introduced Patriot Act 2 last year and that it was actually worse than the House version of Patriot Act 2 because it included a bunch of gun control. Didn't get a response.

My point was that the definition of the "militia" was not universally established even at the time of the drafting of the Consititution, ergo it is still not clearly of one definition except in your mind. Believe me, I wish that it wa a settled case, but you must admit, as far as the courts it is something to be avoided, not confronted?
Click to expand...

It is a settled case if you look into the history behind it. We are all members of the militia. A standing army (including the national guard) is not the militia.

I ask again, does anyone think that any citizen should be able to own any piece of military hardware without any constraints from the Feds whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
It IS well defined

"It was my impression that The Militia Act, circa 1792 or thereabouts had defined the militia adequately. Perhaps I'm wrong though."

You're not. The Militia Act of 1792 exists, in substantially the same basic form, as 10 USC 311. This definition was used in the Miller decision.

Note also that many states have statutes with similar language.
 
If you analyze U.S. vs. Miller very carefully, the ruling is that the conviction under the 34 act is upheld. The holding is that "in order for a particular weapon to be protected by the 2A, as unto the *INDIVIDUAL*, then that weapon needs to be reasonably related to a 'well-regulated' militia group, which means ultimately, only that the weapon be shown to be *useful to* a military or paramilitary group." The HOLDING compels the conclusion that IF the defendant/appellant had at trial demonstrated that a short barreled shotgun is used by, or even useful to, a military OR a paramilitary group, then THAT weapon would have been found to be protected unto him as an *individual*. He didn't because he was a dumb redneck who of course didn't pay his lawyer to even show up at oral arguments or file a brief with the SCOTUS, or make such a showing at the trial level. If the dipstick would have actually had a lawyer show up at the SCOTUS and file a brief, he probably could have gotten, at the very least,a remand to the lower court for a new trial, for such a finding of fact - whether a short barreled shotgun is 'useful to a military or paramilitary group'. An appellate judge cannot take judicial notice that a particular gun is or is not useful to a military, unless perhaps a military manual or some such authoritative source would have been presented showing a short barreled shotgun in use. The main point is, that being useful to the military, makes the weapon protected as to 'the people' - INDIVIDUALS, not militaries or the wholly bogus idea of state national guards (whose members pledge allegiance to the FEDERAL government, which is antithetical to the idea of the 2A being a check AGAINST the fedgov).

The irony of course, is that full auto small arms are clearly protected from being banned by the 2A (we could argue about whether class III licensing is unconstitutional); whereas, little pocket derringers and such are arguably NOT protected by the 2A, because they're not useful to a SOLDIER. Well, actually, they are probably protected, because there have been numerous tiny guns like derringers, glove guns, belt buckle guns and the like, developed by (though rarely actually used by) military outfits throughout history, but they're not so clearly protected unto the individual as a select-fire M4 is, according to the holding in Miller, which not only has not been overturned, it's not even been addressed since then, since the scotus keeps shirking its duty to rule, and ignoring 2A cases where the rubber meets the road.
 
Not really........

"If you analyze U.S. vs. Miller very carefully, the ruling is that the conviction under the 34 act is upheld."

Actually, "if you analyze U.S. vs. Miller very carefully," you find no such conviction. As the fool Miller did not raise the issue at trial, he was precluded from raising it on appeal; however, the Supreme Court sent the case back down for analysis of the suitability of short shotguns to a militia.

As "trench guns" were a very recent memory and were used as recently as Viet Nam (particularly in tunnels), proving the utility of a shotgun would have been a no-brainer. However, Miller did not appear for such hearings and the issue was thereby rendered moot.

Miller was scum, but his case has a certain utility. ;)
 
Could we start a petition to get a redress of our grievances?

Particularly the '86,'68, and '34 power grabs.........We the people need to show that we still run this country and have the will to fight for what is rightfully ours
:)
 
Third Do you really think that if any justified armed conflict happened stateside that the army, navy, airforce, and marines would just blindly obliterate their own people under the quote,"Just doing my job."?
Click to expand...
Of course they would.
 
Third Do you really think that if any justified armed conflict happened stateside that the army, navy, airforce, and marines would just blindly obliterate their own people under the quote,"Just doing my job."?
Click to expand...

They did in Germany. U.S. army soldiers toured many German civilians through the concentration camps just outside of town. "Oh, ve didn't know dis was here, oh my lord."

How many soldiers that put millions in death camps were told the truth of what they were doing?

What an ignorant statement.





On a side note, I have to laugh at the thread title. You've gotta wonder how anyone in this 'security above all rights' day and age could, in any way shape or form, consider someone else who is interested in fighting for their privacy rights as possibly being "over the top". It really boggles the mind how far the neo-con/leftist radio and television media have gone in brainwashing people on the so called right and left. How perfect indeed. I couldn't have designed a more perfect slavery system with 1,000 years of planning.
 
yes it is ignorant of me to have enough faith in people to be able to see the difference between protecting and serving (whicth is good for the nation) and criminal acts against their own people....... I need to learn to articulate what I mean to say in these forums better. Yes Mr. pschosword you sure told me... :rolleyes: So psycosword believes that if ever the American public was to take up arms against the government(justified as my post stated) that the military would all stick together and simply destroy their brothers and sisters........

PS Pschosword I don't know much about Germany but what does that have to do with an armed justified conflict "stateside" as my post said.....pssssst don't tell anyone but Germans ain't American :eek: Of course they would not know immediately and would follow orders but as imfo became available many would leave seeing what truly is.........Americans are americans and not Government flunkies and would side with their People. If the U.S started placing citizens into concentration camps(like the Japanese were) how many citizens would disappear before soldiers started questioning what was going on........? I don't know whitch is worse you calling me ignorant or your example of Germany as a "justified stateside armed conflict" :rolleyes:
 
OK, number 6, then I may have misspoken, in part, about US v. Miller...hmm, need to go back and review that. It *was* remanded for such a showing? And was it only then that Miller failed to make the showing that SB shotguns are useful to a military? Also, I made another mistake; appellate judges cannot even take judicial notice - they can rule from the record ONLY - a trial court judge can take judicial notice - say, if a military manual had shown a trench gun with its dimensions. Weird how our rights turn on the failure of one yahoo to fully prosecute his case. We'd be MUCH better off if he had never filed the writ of certiorari to begin with, rather than half-azzing it.
 
Using this logic as it pertains to the Second Amm. every "type of arm" the colonist had at their disposal should never be denied to the American public. Rifles, shotguns, handguns...
Click to expand...

...warships.

I mean, who was Congress authorized to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to, after all? If Bill Gates wants to buy a surplus CVN, what do I really care? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top