Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS][RELIGION] a top 20 story at reddit.com...

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

If you don't mind I will confine it to the ACLU policy as stated:

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation
of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v.
Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for
lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by
individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no
constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

First, this is an incorrect assessment of this ruling. Second, it is
an incorrect assessment based on many other interpretations of the
second amendment.

The ruling does not say anything about the individual not ever being
able to own a weapon, nor does it say that it only applies to the
states as the ACLU policy would suggest. The ruling states that the
2nd amendment does not afford the right of a person to own a shotgun
with a barrel of less than 18 inches.

On the other hand, the ruling makes it clear that in order to meet the
demands set forth by the concept and meaning of the amendment, that
all able bodied men are required to own his own weapon.

So the ACLU takes this to the next step and says that the 2nd
amendment does not afford individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
They cite this case as the basis of that view, except it is
misdirected. Read the ruling here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

And while this case does say the ownership of weapons is for
maintenance of a militia, the ACLU leaves off the part where every
able-bodied man is part of the militia and as far as I know this has
not been removed. The able-bodied man part is still the main standing
of our modern day draft.

As part of your reading assignment now, after you sent me to read the
ACLU propaganda one more time, you should read this:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html

This is from the law department of the University of Missouri - Kansas
City. It is a good read on why the ACLU's view of the second amendment
is flawed and goes into rather lengthy discussion on the framers
thoughts about the second amendment.

Warning, it is long, so give yourself ample time please.



On 3/6/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Vern Green wrote:
>
> >> Do you think that the people can fight the government without heavy
> >> weapons?  That seems unlikely to me.
> >
> > Well, actually I do believe so. First, the VC stomped the US even though
> > they were a small, poorly equipped military. The Iraqi resistance is not
> > holding the US at bay with missiles and tanks either.
> >
> > I don't think our military will be very effective if it came to an armed
> > resistance in the US even though the American military has all the heavy
> > weapons at their disposal. Armed resistance in the US would have a very
> > good chance of defeating our military.
>
> I suppose you're right.
>
>
> >>> The ACLU takes the stance, as I have read in the past, that the 2nd
> >>> Amendment only applies to the states rights to maintain a militia,
> >>> e.g. The National Guard". This is why they will not take on any single
> >>> person's right to own a weapon despite the 2nd amendments statement
> >>> that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> >>> infringed."
> >>
> >> I guess you and the ACLU don't agree on how the 2nd Amendment should be
> >> interpretted.  I don't know who is right.
> >
> > Well, when you read the ruling of US vs Miller in 1939, the ACLU is
> > misreading that ruling. They take the ruling a lot further than the
> > ruling actually stated. The Miller ruling had to pertain to a sawed off
> > shotgun. The court said that while every able bodied man was part of the
> > militia and they were required to show up for service with a weapon in
> > kind, the sawed off shotgun did not meet that requirement.
>
> That sounds like it applies to a lot more than sawed off shotguns.  Here
> is the ACLU position:
>
> http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
>
>
> > It in no way said that Miller did not have the right to own a weapon, on
> > the contrary, it could be read that the ruling required every man to own
> > a weapon, but the ACLU in their selective interpretation of the
> > Constitution, chose to interpret their own way.
>
> If it meant that every man has the right to own a weapon, it did not
> clarify what weapon he has a right to own except by showing one example of
> a weapon that he did not have a right to own.
>
>
> > The point I have made on multiple occasions is that if the ACLU read the
> > 2nd amendment the way they read the first and fifth amendments, not only
> > would every person be able to own a weapon, they would be required to
> > own a weapon. Since the ACLU is mainly a group of liberal fanatics (my
> > opinion, shared by a great many others) supporting the 2nd amendment is
> > counter to the individuals belief in removing the weapons from the hands
> > of Americans.
>
> Please respond to their words and see if you can show what is wrong with
> their ideas.  So far you haven't convinced me much, but I do agree with
> one of your arguments (which contradicts theirs), specifically, that the
> US military would have a very hard time taking over a state or city if all
> the men there had good guns and ammo and the military was not willing to
> just blow them all to smithereens.  (We aren't defeating the insurgents in
> Iraq because we aren't willing to kill as many women and children and
> innocent men as would be necessary to win quickly.)
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion