Pages: 1
Posted by: ShadyRascal
That's a beautiful post there, Cap'n Quint. Saving it to my documents.
SR
Posted by: CaptainQuint
I won't get into a huge length post on the subject but the justices in their arguments are showing they can't can't understand even the most simple aspects of constitutional history or the context of of what they're trying to rule on. The frightening part is they don't even know they're role. They're unfortunately going to legislate from the bench and attempt to "rewrite" the constitution to make it say something historically it does not and something it's founders did not intend.
What did they intended? Let's ask them shall we?
Let's ask founding father George M Mason"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
And
"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."
How about Mr. James Monroe?
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Would the esteemed Father of our country George Washington weigh in on the subject?
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
Will the gentleman from Virginia and orator extraordinaire, Patrick Henry enlighten us as to the purpose of our arms?
"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, in our hands, or in those of congress?"
How about Thomas Jefferson?
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
How about Richard Henry Lee?
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788
No matter what some black robed tyrant says it doesn't change what the Constitutions actually means. Even in US Code YOU are a member of the militia which is not the national guard no matter how much they advance they myth they are the modern minutemen and such. They aren't. They're a standing army. A modern professional outstanding one but the US or state militia they aren't.
Before I go off another legal tangent I'll leave you with a final quote from Thomas Jefferson. This quote cuts to the heart of why there is a Second Amendment. It isn't about hunting. It isn't even about protecting your family from intruders and common criminals or people trying to do you physical harm. The Second Amendment is to protect you and your Liberty from the government, the power of the state and any force they may be able to turn against the people. It is the final check and balance.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
Posted by: CaptainQuint
People in the military do give up certain rights when they enlist and they're also bound the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. The President being the Comander In Chief would be your superior officer I would assume you would be under some obligation as to your actions and your choice of words. Someone more familiar with teh actual regulations would have to chime in on that though.
Given what active duty personel say on a regular basis on the record about the sitting President I don't know what you would have to say to actually be prosecuted for anything. As far as I know no one ever has been.
Posted by: deanz400
couldn't say it any better DeeDawg
Posted by: deanz400
As a member in the Army Reserves ,a private conversation is still a private one ,but put an opinion piece in the local paper then your talking something differant.
Posted by: deanz400
but all in all Military personal are held to a lot higher standard then civilian people
Posted by: MrDumass
I hardly doubt they want us redneck sharp shooters forming a militia, they must be mistaken! If a militia is formed, it should be to protect the people from the Gov.....aren't we a little late here?img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
Posted by: Reb2
The first admendment states "right of the people". Of course it deals with freedom of speech.
The second admendment states "right of the people" also.
So if it is being stated that the second admendment doesn't apply to the "right of the people" then the first admendment must not apply to the people either. I wonder who it does apply to.
Posted by: Reb2
Well, I can still see the light of day so my head must be where it belongs.
Posted by: CobraR6
Thats complete B.S. Did you look at the survey though? 96% say that gun ownership is an individuals RIGHT! That should tell them something. I will say one thing though...well quote someone else...
"So as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those words again for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: From my cold dead hands! (raises a rifle in his hand) "
-Charlton Heston @ the 2000 NRA convention
The last part is the best: "From my cold dead hands!"
Posted by: DeeDawg
Some people can not read and comprehend the words:
"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Posted by: DeeDawg
Thanks, but I'm just repeating the words of men far smarter than I.....
Posted by: DeeDawg
Very well said, Capt'n
Posted by: DeeDawg
Originally posted byReb2: The first admendment states "right of the people". Of course it deals with freedom of speech.
The second admendment states "right of the people" also.
So if it is being stated that the second admendment doesn't apply to the "right of the people" then the first admendment must not apply to the people either. I wonder who it does apply to.
Reb - if you were a liberal it would all be clear to you.....to see it from their perspective you have to have your head up your.....
Posted by: DeeDawg
Originally posted by gohip2000: It is in the UCMJ. (you can not slander your superiors)
I was unaware that I couldn't talk with my buddies on my own time and give my opinion about the president, but I was soon confronted the next day, after someone overheard me talking to my buddies, and was told that if anything negative about the president came out of my mouth again, I would get an article 15 and loose a months pay
It is highly unlikely that you would be punished for comments made in private. However, if you are speaking in a loud voice in a crowded chow hall, than it's hardly private. The one time that I know of a military person actually get punished for comments made about a sitting president was when an air force officer made a statement in a public format. Of course, that was about clinton, and many would consider bush fair game.
Posted by: squeege
read it here
Posted by: squeege
Quote
Originally posted by: gohip2000
It is in the UCMJ. (you can not slander your superiors)
I was unaware that I couldn't talk with my buddies on my own time and give my opinion about the president, but I was soon confronted the next day, after someone overheard me talking to my buddies, and was told that if anything negative about the president came out of my mouth again, I would get an article 15 and loose a months pay
THAT BLOWS
Posted by: gohip2000
so is it unconstitutional for military members to live in fear of prosicution because they thought they had the right to free speech and said that they think the president is a lousy president?
I'm not trying to make a point, but am asking a question?
Posted by: gohip2000
It is in the UCMJ. (you can not slander your superiors)
I was unaware that I couldn't talk with my buddies on my own time and give my opinion about the president, but I was soon confronted the next day, after someone overheard me talking to my buddies, and was told that if anything negative about the president came out of my mouth again, I would get an article 15 and loose a months pay
Posted by: gohip2000
You have to remember that not all SGTs use their power as they should. some just like to flex their power and the SGT that told me that was like that. Most people wouldn't care, but he butted into the conversation and threatened me with UCMJ.
Posted by: gohip2000
As a former member of Active Duty Army I can say
reserve is a little different than active duty. Active duty, you can be called at any time 24/7 to be put on a detail or you can be punished at any time also.
