NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

[diehardbiker]

Yeah, but not just national guards, there are many out there with their own identity.

the good militants you are speaking of are in National Guards.

 

[Jiro]

It is common for Deafies not read it correct and think they are right. I understand why your confused.

actually foxrac is right on the dot. there's a reason why the Supreme Court ruling was 5-4.

"A well-regulated militia".... what makes them "well-regulated"? perhaps you might want to read the entire Constitution.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Article I - Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Article II - Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

therefore... a well-regulated militia is definitely referring to National Guards but that isn't an issue in here. The issue is this very sentence - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

people = who? that is the question and I believe it's the entire American citizens but IMO, they're not a well-regulated militia. 2 very different things.

 

[Jiro]

Yeah, but not just national guards, there are many out there with their own identity.

yea they're lunatics and terrorist... and a bunch of army-wannabes and rejects. I would be very careful about the use of term "militia".

 

[Foxrac]

Hence "Private" that is why you don't see em but they are out there.

The best thing about being private is that world will never know and if they ever attack us, man! all of these element of surprises awaiting for them. That is one of reason why no other countries have the balls to attack us.

I never encountered around private militias.

Like Jiro said, I only see National Guards around here and they are very respectful.

 

[diehardbiker]

Yeah? It already pointed exact my definition, PEOPLE means WE the people, include you, Foxrac, and everybody else as well. The constitution were written as FOR people of the United States, not for US Government. The goal of the amendment is to make sure that government isn't going above the law, guess it failed in some way.

people = who? that is the question and I believe it's the entire American citizens.

 

[Jiro]

I never encountered around private militias.

Like Jiro said, I only see National Guards around here and they are very respectful.

there's no such thing as "private" militas. it sounds like a private army

 

[diehardbiker]

You will be surprise, I forgot the name of Militants back in 80's that don't believe in carrying firearms and seek as peacemaker during 80's I wish I could remember the name so I can google up. Anyway, these militant, do you considered them evil terrorist, eh?

yea they're lunatics and terrorist... and a bunch of army-wannabes and rejects. I would be very careful about the use of term "militia".

 

[diehardbiker]

I can't believe you can't read the link, it said they grew 1,200 Milita groups, that means there is over 1,200 private militant groups out there.

there's no such thing as "private" militas. it sounds like a private army

 

[Jiro]

Yeah? It already pointed exact my definition, PEOPLE means WE the people, include you, Foxrac, and everybody else as well. The constitution were written as FOR people of the United States, not for US Government. The goal of the amendment is to make sure that government isn't going above the law, guess it failed in some way.

that's fine. that's what I agree with.

But it would be rather comical to refer a bunch of Joe the Plumber with guns coming together as "a well regulated militia" unless they're National Guards.

that's why Supreme Court took months to argue over semantics and the ruling ended up with 5-4.

"A well regulated militia (National Guards), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (the American citizens) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

it's 2 different things.. which was why DC gun ban and Chicago gun ban were struck down since it infringed upon "the right of the people".

2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.

 

[Jiro]

I can't believe you can't read the link, it said they grew 1,200 Milita groups, that means there is over 1,200 private militant groups out there.

is there "public" milita?

the link... are you referring to this one? http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/militia-groups-us-grows-more-1200/nTCnJ/

there's no mention of "private militia". I think you're not really understanding it. militia IS a military force comprised of citizens... different from "real" military. there's no such thing as private militia. same thing with "private army". there's no such thing. it's just an euphemism for mercenary.

private cop? no... it's a security guard.
private soldier? no... it's a mercenary.

"private militia" is like saying "private lawyer".

 

[VacationGuy234]

I'm against an executive order on gun control. However, I think background checks at gun shows should be mandatory and I do think that will probably pass congress.

 

[diehardbiker]

GOP Rep. Threatens Impeachment Over Obama’s Possible Executive Order On Gun Control | Mediaite


GOP Rep. Threatens Impeachment Over Obama’s Possible Executive Order On Gun Control
by Anjali Sareen | 6:01 pm, January 14th, 2013 » 64 comments

GOP Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) took the gun control debate up a notch Monday when he issued a statement threatening to file articles of impeachment if President Obama bans assault weapons or attempts other gun control measures via executive order.

Stockman said any such actions on the president’s part would be an infringement on a “constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” He called the possibility of an executive order “unconscionable” and vowed to “thwart this action by any means necessary, including, but not limited to…filing articles of impeachment.”

RELATED: Mark Levin Goes Off On ‘Tyranny’ Under Obama’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ To Fox’s Megyn Kelly

At Obama’s recent press conference, he hinted at the possibility of executive action, saying that he was “confident” there were “steps” he could take that wouldn’t “require legislation.” Vice President Joe Biden said the White House was considering an executive order last week.

Stockman said this rhetoric was “an existential threat to this nation.”

“The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger,” he said. “If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

h/t TPM


================================

See? 2nd Amendment actually prohibits any government bodies from making any such action against right to bear arms, once he did, he stand risk of impeachment.

 

[VacationGuy234]

I don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. He has the right to do it, I believe.

 

[diehardbiker]

The fact is he is trying to get above the law, by attempt to abuse the power using executive order, it won't happen.

I don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. He has the right to do it, I believe.

 

[VacationGuy234]

An executive order is completely within the law. It is there to help enforce the law. If he signs an order to put gun checks in federal hands, there is nothing illegal about it.

Remember, we already have laws on the books for gun control.

 

[Foxrac]

GOP Rep. Threatens Impeachment Over Obama’s Possible Executive Order On Gun Control | Mediaite


GOP Rep. Threatens Impeachment Over Obama’s Possible Executive Order On Gun Control
by Anjali Sareen | 6:01 pm, January 14th, 2013 » 64 comments

GOP Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) took the gun control debate up a notch Monday when he issued a statement threatening to file articles of impeachment if President Obama bans assault weapons or attempts other gun control measures via executive order.

Stockman said any such actions on the president’s part would be an infringement on a “constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” He called the possibility of an executive order “unconscionable” and vowed to “thwart this action by any means necessary, including, but not limited to…filing articles of impeachment.”

RELATED: Mark Levin Goes Off On ‘Tyranny’ Under Obama’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ To Fox’s Megyn Kelly

At Obama’s recent press conference, he hinted at the possibility of executive action, saying that he was “confident” there were “steps” he could take that wouldn’t “require legislation.” Vice President Joe Biden said the White House was considering an executive order last week.

Stockman said this rhetoric was “an existential threat to this nation.”

“The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger,” he said. “If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

h/t TPM


================================

See? 2nd Amendment actually prohibits any government bodies from making any such action against right to bear arms, once he did, he stand risk of impeachment.

That's very opinion of you and Rep. Stockman.

The court will have say if it is constitutional or unconstitutional.

 

[Foxrac]

I don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. He has the right to do it, I believe.

Yup, the constitution allows the president to do executive action.

The fact is he is trying to get above the law, by attempt to abuse the power using executive order, it won't happen.

Above the law? Not really, our constitution allows our president to exercise the executive action. If it is unconstitutional, Biden wouldn't suggest at beginning.

 

[Foxrac]

An executive order is completely within the law. It is there to help enforce the law. If he signs an order to put gun checks in federal hands, there is nothing illegal about it.

Remember, we already have laws on the books for gun control.

Yup or he can use to enforce the existing background check for all with executive order.

 

[Foxrac]

New York State Gun Laws The First In Country Since Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting In Newtown

Not surprised about New York.

 

[Foxrac]

Ronald Miller Poses As Gunman To Test His Child's School Security, Gets Arrested In Texas: Cops

What's moron moves.