Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cavanami

New Zealand Thread

Recommended Posts

Should this not be in the unofficial "Beer Thread"

 

Stones Green Ginger part of my diet 40 years ago, we had finite finances and an urge to get out of it, so Stones Green, Buckfast Wine, Merrydown Cider were all on may list, I was a late comer to Mad Dog aka MD 20/20 only found that at a US Quatermasters base in Korea 1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA has a constitution with a Bill of Rights...2nd amendment allows for the "right to bear arms".

 

 

Cav

 

I do agree with the second amendment to the US Constitution as it was written "The Right to Bear Arms" which was written over 200 years ago when you had catapults pea shooters and the occasional flintlock.

 

The problem is that the Second Amendment has not moved with the times, a right granted to US Citizens in the 1800's for catapults pea shooters and the occasional flintlock now encompasses assault rifle and bump stock etc

 

Even some Americans see the irony

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution also guarantees the right of free speech, but nowadays campus protests (at Berkeley of all places) are demanding that only speech they agree with should be allowed. It must be time to rewrite the Constitution to reflect the changing attitudes.

 

p.s. George Washington refused to accept his salary as President, saying he didn't need it. Trump is the first president to follow suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 the phrase, “well regulated militia,†underlined the importance of the words, “shall not be infringed.â€

 

Consider the Second Amendment: “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.â€

 

At the outset we must understand that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not in spite of the mention of a militia but because of it. In other words, because the militia played a key role in the Founders’ minds, and is intended to play a key role even now, the right to possess arms, with which to gather in militia, “shall not be infringed.â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the term "Militia" is defined by congress and today falls under the militia act of 1903. The statement that the constitution makes being"part of" would suggest it's inherent to the need for keeping and carrying firearms.

 

If the take is indeed that this is a because rather than in spite of situation then it seems perfectly correct to assume that there is a need for people to be able to keep and carry arms in order that that they be able to participate freely in such a militia should the need ever arise. Said Militia law also places age constraints on eligibility for duty in such a militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And anyway, what does "well regulated militia" mean?

Meaning of "well regulated militia"[edit]

 

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[168] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[169]

In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security ... confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority ... [but] reserving to the states ... the authority of training the militia ... A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the
, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss ... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Courtconstrued the Second Amendment as protecting the 'natural right of self-defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.

Justice Stevens in dissent:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment ... codified a pre-existing right," ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.

 

 

Believe it or not it is loosely based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights, so know your own history before dissing others https://en.wikipedia..._of_Rights_1689

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...