Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
38. sawed off reasoning
Sun May 26, 2013, 12:14 PM
May 2013

excop: These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller, which was a sawed off shotgun, having no relation to arms used in the military service, was not protected {by 2ndA}. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.

Revisionist editing? you've a lot of nerve since your whole argument is revisionist history; but it matters nowt coming from a clear disciple of the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible.
.. re your 3 cases, I see what you're driving at but it's an invalid red herring; simply because the 3 courts (might've) agreed in principle with miller - that only certain firearms were allowable for well reg'd militias - does not mean the courts concurrently felt that 2ndA was thus an individual rkba - by some kind of convoluted dialectic reasoning - that is absurd.
.. the 3 courts may have agreed with the principle that a sawed off shotgun was not necessary for the maintenance of a well reg'd militia, but this is just supportive opinion prior to the miller case, & anything else the 3 cases might infer apparently have no bearing on the miller decision.
I don't even understand why you cite them, they don't argue for an individual 2ndA interpretation, just for state's rkbas, which might convey individual rights.
Except for fife: .. you cited 'fife v arkansas' - here is the final disposition of the case, and it clearly supports that of the miller collective militia view, per the state of arkansas.

fife v ark.: The indications in the evidence are, that the plaintiff {fife} in error was carrying a pistol of that class or character intended to be prohibited by the {arkansas} Legislature, and which we think may be prohibited, in the exercise of the police power of the State without any infringement of the constitutional right of the citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their common defense. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/130st.htm

Arkansas at the time, 1876, clearly granted a militia based rkba:.. present Constitution of this {arkansas} State, declares that: "The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."

Too many gun nuts like that guy. That's what guns on demand has done to our society. Hoyt Apr 2013 #1
Cave boy, probably lives with his mother. Kingofalldems Apr 2013 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #3
and access to deadly weapons..... lastlib Apr 2013 #4
looks like an ak47 jimmy the one Apr 2013 #5
99.9% of folks here really dont give a damn what the precise nomenclature for his lethal weapons or Hoyt Apr 2013 #6
+1 freshwest Apr 2013 #7
calm down hoyt jimmy the one Apr 2013 #8
Well that's a good approach -- Only allow elephant guns that knock you on your ass with first shot. Hoyt Apr 2013 #9
teamwork jimmy the one Apr 2013 #11
you are a bit off on the metal slanting thing Travis_0004 Apr 2013 #12
It is an AK ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #14
going gunny again for a bit jimmy the one May 2013 #15
Reply ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #16
caliber not that important jimmy the one May 2013 #17
Differences ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #18
I do support book bans jimmy the one May 2013 #19
That's not a logical position ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #20
war of 1812 no shows jimmy the one May 2013 #21
If you sincerely believe that billh58 May 2013 #28
"..down the hall and to the Far Right." Heheheheh! nt Pholus May 2013 #29
Sure, if all you want to hear is ... ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #30
Pimping your blog billh58 May 2013 #32
Whatever. ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #33
Is he related to this guy? SunSeeker Apr 2013 #10
where is the mental bleach when I need it??? niyad May 2013 #13
1939 miller was 8-0 unanimous jimmy the one May 2013 #22
Miller supports individual, not collective, rights ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #23
Welcome back billh58 May 2013 #24
Huh? ExCop-LawStudent May 2013 #25
Okey dokey billh58 May 2013 #26
There seems to be a lot of pro-gun posters who espouse NRA talking points but claim to be not NRA coldmountain May 2013 #27
Yeah---funny how many of these "reasonable" RKBA Absolutists have turned up, lately. Paladin May 2013 #36
It's so obvious that billh58 May 2013 #37
They've been turning up in clusters for years, here at DU. Paladin May 2013 #39
Well, the gun porn people have hijacked another thread. n/t JimDandy May 2013 #31
joseph story on the militia jimmy the one May 2013 #34
state cases jimmy the one May 2013 #35
sawed off reasoning jimmy the one May 2013 #38
It's fucking idiots like that who have serious mental issues that should not own guns. madinmaryland May 2013 #40
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Oh, my. "Meet the face of...»Reply #38