[Tarzan1888]

Well I hope so!

"Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership:"

“We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means,” campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. “Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically.”

"Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss

The nation’s leading gun control group filed a “friend of the court” brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose."

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/ ... he-day-18/

If its true.....it couldn't happen to a better bunch.

Tarzan

 

[mchlwise]

I never considered myself "pro gun" until earlier this year. I'd been pretty neutral on the issue until recently.

It was nut cases like these that changed my mind. :lol2:

 

[rdoggsilva]

They say never turn your back or run from a dangerous animal. So we still need to watch these nut cases.

 

[Tarzan1888]

They say never turn your back or run from a dangerous animal. So we still need to watch these nut cases.

You will notice that I said "If its true" in my OP and I agree that we must always be vigilant. :fudd:

Tarzan

 

[Shaolin]

Yup, some crazy people out there.

 

[divegeek]

They say never turn your back or run from a dangerous animal. So we still need to watch these nut cases.

You will notice that I said "If its true" in my OP and I agree that we must always be vigilant.

And the best defense is a good offense.

We need to keep pushing legislation like the parking lot exemption and the OC clarification at the state level, and at the national level start pushing for rolling back bits and pieces of the FOPA, the GCA and even the NFA. In other states the battle should be to legalize campus carry for CCW holders. I still think federal law establishing national reciprocity for CCW permits, similar to reciprocity for driver's licenses, is a good idea although I know many here disagree with me.

Keep the anti-gunners too busy fighting the pro-gun initiatives to push any of their own. And do it THEIR way -- a little nibble here and a little nibble there. I think one of the biggest problems pro-gunners have is that we have too many idealists who don't want to support new legislation unless it fixes all the problems.

 

[rdoggsilva]

:agree: I totally agree, we need to go on the offensive. As you said go after it a little at a time. Keep the antis off balance.

 

[Guest]

Here's the thing: The Supreme Court, back in the days of yore, ruled that sawed off shotguns were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not characteristic of the kinds of weapon one might bring to military service.

This ruling came with two implications:
1 - That the Second Amendment protects arms intended for militia service
2 - That the Militia (being composed of private citizens) was, indeed, intended to supply its own arms

Contrary to what ******** and Helmke say, the Second Amendment protects BOTH a public right to keep a militia, and a private right to own weapons. Understanding the term Militia in its original context, you cannot separate the two -- attempting to do so undermines the entire principle that inspired the Second Amendment. Indeed, the sovereignty of the state is inseparable from the freedom and well-being of its people.

This is what the Brady campaign did not understand -- or chose not to understand -- when they asserted that a handgun ban was somehow legal. Semiautomatic handguns are, indeed, characteristic of what you would bring to military service. You know how we know that? BECAUSE WE FIELD OUR MILITARY WITH SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNS FOR SIDEARMS. I know, it's a shock to everyone here.

But here comes the scary part: Understanding that the Second Amendment, according to SCOTUS, was designed specifically to protect arms that are characteristic of military service, this means that semi-automatic, muzzle-loading, pump-action, and lever-action rifles are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. At least, not anymore. We don't field them in the military. We use bolt-action rifles but not a lot.

But what kind of rifle is characteristic of the kinds of weapon you would bring to military service? Machine guns.

If you can forbid the ownership of a scattergun because it's not a decent military rifle, you must, by that same logic, allow fully automatic assault rifles for private citizens. That is the standard infantry weapon you see in military service. And when I, as a member of the Utah State Militia (being able-bodied and between the age of 18 and 45) am called to military service, I should supply a weapon that is sufficient for the job.

Therefore, I shout my war-cry: REPEAL THE GCA OF 68!

 

[eddified]

I read on the JPFO site that the part of the 2nd amendment mentioning the militia wasn't meant to be a restriction, merely ONE reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. JPFO claims it is not a restriction, but rather one reason supporting RKBA, based on the fact that it was common during those days to word things in such a way as to have a "preamble" first and then the real content. So, JPFO claims the whole part about the militia is a "preamble" to the rest of the 2nd amendment, instead of a restriction.

In any case, there is plenty of evidence that the founding fathers intended for individuals to keep and bear arms. Too bad "Original Intent" isn't a very good argument anymore .. :crying:

 

[Guest]

In any case, there is plenty of evidence that the founding fathers intended for individuals to keep and bear arms. Too bad "Original Intent" isn't a very good argument anymore .. :crying:

Even if the 2A were just for members of the militia, that still protects my weapons because I am a member of the militia.

All able-bodied citizens, and all able-bodied persons of foreign birth who have declared their intention to become citizens, who are 18 years of age or older and younger than 45 years of age, who are residents of this state, constitute the militia...

Both my wife and myself therefore must have weapons because, an unarmed militia isn't really very useful for much at all, is it?

And we should be machine guns, too. 'Cause an out-gunned militia doesn't do the state much good either.

And we gotta train with our weapons a lot. Because an unskilled militia is also useless.

 

[eddified]

In any case, there is plenty of evidence that the founding fathers intended for individuals to keep and bear arms. Too bad "Original Intent" isn't a very good argument anymore .. :crying:

Even if the 2A were just for members of the militia, that still protects my weapons because I am a member of the militia.

All able-bodied citizens, and all able-bodied persons of foreign birth who have declared their intention to become citizens, who are 18 years of age or older and younger than 45 years of age, who are residents of this state, constitute the militia...

Both my wife and myself therefore must have weapons because, an unarmed militia isn't really very useful for much at all, is it?

And we should be machine guns, too. 'Cause an out-gunned militia doesn't do the state much good either.

And we gotta train with our weapons a lot. Because an unskilled militia is also useless.

AGREED
Wow, that's pretty cool! Thanks!!!