Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Diesel doesn't go boom like gasoline does. Throw in some propane tanks, block one of the major exits before hand and there you go.

Grats Frazz now were all being monitored by the NSA

I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question

The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.

 Frazzled wrote:
The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.

And it still technically does. The intent of the militia statement will hold for all time. Yes we have a standing army, but there may come a point where that will not be enough, and the citizenry will have to defend itself. That is the intent behind the militia portion. The 2nd Amendment is much more then just that though.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.

And it still technically does. The intent of the militia statement will hold for all time. Yes we have a standing army, but there may come a point where that will not be enough, and the citizenry will have to defend itself. That is the intent behind the militia portion. The 2nd Amendment is much more then just that though.

Actually it isn't. The militia's were extremely important parts of the Colonies defense as the military simply couldn't be in every place at once to defend against raiders, Indians, bandits, pirates or what ever have you.

Nowadays in the age of global warfare militia's don't really serve any point other than a hobby for crazy people to run around in the wildness and pretend to be soldiers. Not to mention the fact that the country is not under any threat were the citizenry would have to defend itself barring a zombie apocalypse.

The right of every free man to own a gun is an inferred right rather than a stated one, similar to the right to privacy. If you want to get literal, you have no right to privacy or to own weapons outside of a militia specifically formed for the defense of the nation (when allowed by the government).

But nowadays we have what we call "Inferred rights", rights that we can interpret the constitution to give us, rather than outright stating it.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.

And it still technically does. The intent of the militia statement will hold for all time. Yes we have a standing army, but there may come a point where that will not be enough, and the citizenry will have to defend itself. That is the intent behind the militia portion. The 2nd Amendment is much more then just that though.

Actually it isn't. The militia's were extremely important parts of the Colonies defense as the military simply couldn't be in every place at once to defend against raiders, Indians, bandits, pirates or what ever have you.

Nowadays in the age of global warfare militia's don't really serve any point other than a hobby for crazy people to run around in the wildness and pretend to be soldiers. Not to mention the fact that the country is not under any threat were the citizenry would have to defend itself barring a zombie apocalypse.

The right of every free man to own a gun is an inferred right rather than a stated one, similar to the right to privacy. If you want to get literal, you have no right to privacy or to own weapons outside of a militia specifically formed for the defense of the nation (when allowed by the government).

But nowadays we have what we call "Inferred rights", rights that we can interpret the constitution to give us, rather than outright stating it.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Heller vs. DC. Their most basic finding.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

No its a stated right. Your statements fall in the face of the direct language of the Bill of RIghts.

Here's a hint-read the language of the Second Amendment.
Now here's the hard part. Please point to the right of privacy enumerated in the Bill of Rights or otherwise in the Constitution. It might take a while. And please don't give the "all other rights reserved" crap. That crap's been thrown out the window since your heroe FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS.

The point of an Inferred right is that it is one not directly stated but still holds as much power and authority as one that is.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

See? It states the right to bear arms in connected with a well regulated Militia. That is the LITERAL interpretation.

The inferred right from this is that everyone can "bear arms" as it were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
No its a stated right. Your statements fall in the face of the direct language of the Bill of RIghts.

Here's a hint-read the language of the Second Amendment.
Now here's the hard part. Please point to the right of privacy enumerated in the Bill of Rights or otherwise in the Constitution. It might take a while. And please don't give the "all other rights reserved" crap. That crap's been thrown out the window since your heroe FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS.

Actually it wasn't and FDR DID pack the SCOTUS, that's what's so awesome about it .

Nixon was able to use Executive orders, Reagan did it to, so stop acting like Obama is the first president on earth to use his power to get done what he need to get done.

EDIT: Also Obama and Hillary in 2016 will ensure we have a majority of progressive Judges, so I guess Obama is finally realizing his responsibility as the head of Federal Power.

Isn't Frazzled a lawyer or something? Probably not the guy you want to argue with about interpreting legal documents...

Er no. Methinks it don’t mean what you think it means.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inferred
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.
v.intr.
To draw inferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Second Amendment is plain language. The right to privacy per SCOTUS is inferred from multiple amendments.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Constitutionally it doesn't matter, but obfiscating plain language vs. interpretetd language drawing from support from multiple amendments is a big damn difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The point of an Inferred right is that it is one not directly stated but still holds as much power and authority as one that is.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

See? It states the right to bear arms in connected with a well regulated Militia. That is the LITERAL interpretation.

The inferred right from this is that everyone can "bear arms" as it were.

ok. I've done what I can here. Oh and this is the one actually authenticated and signed off:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Sorry Charlie.

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The Revolutionary War disagrees with you

Umm, that was a revolution. Quite a different thing to what I posted " provided a strong check on government over a long period of time".

And a revolution about taxation without representation is not a strong check on government, aided by firearms? If that is your stance I don't think that I can say anything further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Nixon was able to use Executive orders, Reagan did it to, so stop acting like Obama is the first president on earth to use his power to get done what he need to get done.

Making the fatal error that people oppose Executive Orders simply because of who issues them, rather than understanding that some people object to end-arounds of the democratic process.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The Revolutionary War disagrees with you

Umm, that was a revolution. Quite a different thing to what I posted " provided a strong check on government over a long period of time".

And a revolution about taxation without representation is not a strong check on government, aided by firearms? If that is your stance I don't think that I can say anything further.

Not over a long period of time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not over a long period of time.

So the phrase about taxation without representation originated in the 1750's, and it wasn't until 1775 that the Revolutionary War was fought (which lasted until 1783). 20+ years seems like a pretty significant build up of time.

Alpha 1 wrote:I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question

It's a good question, and this might surprise you, but it was actually a sort of open question until fairly recently. Specifically, the idea that there isn't a right to bear arms that is divorced from being part of an organized militia - this rationale was behind handgun bans such as in Washington DC. It was decided in 2008 that the militia service is not a prerequisite and that there is an individual right to bear arms.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Making the fatal error that people oppose Executive Orders simply because of who issues them, rather than understanding that some people object to end-arounds of the democratic process.

I also dislike Executive Orders because I prefer a more weakened executive in general, relative to the Congress. That being said executive orders and recess appointments are core functions of the democratic process and are working as intended, rather than an end run around it. I hope it wasn't super pedantic to express that thought.

 Ouze wrote:

I also dislike Executive Orders because I prefer a more weakened executive in general, relative to the Congress. That being said executive orders and recess appointments are core functions of the democratic process and are working as intended, rather than an end run around it. I hope it wasn't super pedantic to express that thought.

While it's meant to give the executive flexibility in an emergency, I really think it blurrs the line of separation of powers. I know it's there for use in an Emergency, but it's been used more and more lately to simply bypass the system.


Personally, I own guns because people who don't like me own guns, and they are not too concerned if their guns are legal or not.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I know it's there for use in an Emergency, but it's been used more and more lately to simply bypass the system.

But my point is, that kind of is the system. Still, not as bad as signing statements.

So, I just took a look at the headline of the thread and thought on it for a second.

30 killed daily in 2013, excluding suicides.

In 2010, when you break the numbers down, it came to 33 a day (excluding suicides).

I'd say that's a pretty statistically significant drop.

There actually hasn't been a rise in the average number of executive orders issued, something which surprised me when I checked it. The average under HW was 40 per year (excluding 1993 since he was only there for 20 days), the average under W was 35.75 (excluding 2009), and the average so far under Obama is 33.4 (excluding 2014).

2013 actually saw the least use of executive orders in any given year for at least as far back as Reagan, with only 20 issued.

The substance might be different though; exactly how far reaching executive orders were in the past would be interesting to look at in comparison to today.

The thing that surprised me the most about executive order totals is that with the increased use of the filibuster you'd think the number of executive orders would have increased over time, but the slope is actually slightly downward (admittedly over a small sample size, from 40/year under HW, to 44 under Clinton, to 35 under W, to 33.4 under Obama).

Alpha 1 wrote:
I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's the text of it. I don't see anything in it suggesting one needs to be part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms.

 Seaward wrote:

Alpha 1 wrote:
I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's the text of it. I don't see anything in it suggesting one needs to be part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms.

And as I quoted up above, the Supreme Court agrees.

please delete

Not that it really matters, since the Supreme Court has already decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but I know that in Ohio, the militia is made up of two parts: the organized militia, which includes the National Guard and state defense forces, and the unorganized militia, which basically includes everyone else older than 17 and no older than 67. The unorganized militia can still be called up for state service, but with the caveat that the organized militia must be called up first. So in Ohio, even if you're not in the National Guard or state defense forces, there's a good chance you're still technically a member of the state militia.

I'm guessing Ohio isn't the only state with a similar militia system.

 Hordini wrote:
Not that it really matters, since the Supreme Court has already decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but I know that in Ohio, the militia is made up of two parts: the organized militia, which includes the National Guard and state defense forces, and the unorganized militia, which basically includes everyone else older than 17 and no older than 67. The unorganized militia can still be called up for state service, but with the caveat that the organized militia must be called up first. So in Ohio, even if you're not in the National Guard or state defense forces, there's a good chance you're still technically a member of the state militia.

I'm guessing Ohio isn't the only state with a similar militia system.

Washington state does. However, I'll point out that the following law is still on the Federal books:

Title 10 US Code 311
Militia Composition and Classes

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



Title 10 U.S. Code 312 - Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.



BTW: Russia has some pretty strict gun laws and this still just happened

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26106584