NRA Banquet......(National Riffle Assciation)
Posted by Charleen Schliep (+19) 11 years ago
The 12th annual fund raiser banquet this year is the most important because......Obama says
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
We have to fight for our rights!!!
Please join us this year @ the Eagles on June 5th @ 6:00 for social hour and 7:30 for dinner, provided by Redneck Bar B Q. We will have a live auction, silent auction, and fun games. For more info, dinner tickets, or raffle tickets call me. Charleen 545-9658
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
What's a "riffle?"

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

We have to fight for our rights!!!

How about starting with your responsibilities? President Obama never said that. http://www.factcheck.org/...o_ban.html

Enough fear-mongering. Try honesty instead.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/24/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4456) 11 years ago
Riffles have rudges
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Riffles have rudges

Apparently these sandbars not only have their own lobby, they also have their own motorcycles. Cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...-Whitworth
Top
Posted by Charleen Schliep (+19) 11 years ago
Now that I have your attention..... Support the NRA!!!!!!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+14321) 11 years ago
I prefer to fish riffles with dry flies and nymphs. Pools, on the other hand, are best with big wet flies, stripped slowly.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Now that I have your attention..... Support the NRA!!!!!!!!

Earn my support. (Here's a hint: honesty is the best policy.)

Give me a good argument (that is equal parts rights AND responsibility - one that doesn't rely on fear) and you can have my support.
Top
Posted by Charleen Schliep (+19) 11 years ago
You can have your say and I can have mine. But that is the first amendment, Not the second and that is what we are talking about, Let not lose sight of that. These are the facts....

http://www.morebans.org/

There are all kinds of sites that support both sides, but this is what I beleive. I feel everyone has a right to "Bear Arms" and if I dont fight for that right then I dont deserve that amendment.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+14321) 11 years ago
I woould encourage every Miles City sportsman and sportswoman to boycott this event. If you want to support an organization that fights for your right to bear arms, you would be better served joining the American Hunters and Shooters Association:

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5044) 11 years ago
Top
Posted by jeff boggs (+112) 11 years ago
HI CHARLEEN HOW MUCH ARE THE TICKETS. I WILL TAKE 2 IT IS A GOOD TIME EVERY YEAR. THANKS
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Charleen - I have no problem whatsoever with you believing whatever it is that you choose to believe.

But if you're going to post something that's false, expect people to take issue with it.

I would have a lot more respect for the gun lobby if it didn't resort to fear and dishonesty when it comes to expressing its agenda.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8352) 11 years ago
So what are you raffling this year - cop killer bullets?
Top
Posted by gypsykim (+1563) 11 years ago
President Obama has never said that you don't have the right to bear arms. He is merely trying to stop illegal arms trades within the U.S. If you have an issue with that, then perhaps you are one of the people he is targeting. If so, I hope you get what you deserve.
Top
Posted by Ryan (+484) 11 years ago
Remember a broke hungary country can't revolt without guns and that is exactly what the prez wants
Top
Posted by Charleen Schliep (+19) 11 years ago
Dinner tickets are 30.00 and The dirty dozen raffle contains 12 guns including AR15 (2) those are 50.00 per ticket. No bullets this year that I am aware of, but someone my donate some for the live auction. Call me if you are serious about buying tickets. 545-9658
thanks for all your comments.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+14981) 11 years ago
Remember a broke hungary country can't revolt without guns and that is exactly what the prez wants

Are times really that bad in Hungary?

Seriously, Ryan, I hope you're just trolling with this statement because if you are sincere... well, I hope you're not a product of Miles City's education system.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14231) 11 years ago
I believe most of this speaks for itself. The purpose of the second amendment in the minds of the founders was so that the citizens had a way to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.


"OBAMA POSITIONING FOR BACK DOOR GUN CONTROL


By Chuck Baldwin
April 24, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

On his recent trip to Central America, President Barack Obama did more than cozy up to Marxist dictators; he also signed onto an international treaty that could, in effect, be used as backdoor gun control. It appears that Obama wants to use international treaties to do what congressional legislation is not able to do: further restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.

Obama is using the oft-disproved contention that "90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States" as the stated basis of his support for the international treaty he is promoting. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) treaty. The Bill Clinton administration signed the treaty back in 1997, but the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. Obama intends to change that.

To date, 33 nations in the western hemisphere have signed the treaty. The U.S. is one of four nations that have yet to ratify it. According to one senior Obama administration official, passing the treaty is a "high priority" for the President.

If ratified, the treaty would require the United States to adopt "strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating [gun] smuggling."

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee promises to "work for its [the CIFTA treaty's] approval by the Senate."

Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to "mark" each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it could fall into the category of "illicit manufacturing" of firearms and require government license and oversight.

In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry. Making matters worse is the fact that, as a treaty, this Act does not have to be passed by both houses of Congress, nor is it subject to judicial oversight. All Obama needs to do in order to enact this unconstitutional and egregious form of gun control is convince a Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it.

Obviously, the United Nations, from its very inception, has been one of the world's most ardent gun control proponents. As anyone who has ever driven by the U.N. building in New York City knows, a huge statue of an American-made revolver with its barrel twisted in the shape of a pretzel greets every visitor. The CIFTA treaty is one of the U.N.'s pet projects in order to achieve this long-held ambition.

Of course, Obama is a longtime liberal radical when it comes to the Second Amendment. As a senator, he voted against the Second Amendment at every opportunity. He has never seen a piece of gun control legislation that he did not support. And as I have said before in this column, gun control is high on the list of priorities for the newly elected President Barack Obama.

For Obama to intimate that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States reveals either a truly dishonest and deceptive mind or a totally misinformed and naïve one. Many studies have thoroughly debunked the 90% myth, including one by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott in a recent Fox News report. According to these researchers, the real number is closer to 17%.

According to La Jeunesse and Lott, Mexican drug cartels, which control billions of dollars, obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns from the Black Market, Russian crime syndicates, South America, China, Guatemala, and even from the Mexican army.

In fact, Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar: AK-47s from China; fragmentation grenades from South Korea; shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc dealers; assault weapons from China; and explosives from Korea--just to name a few sources.

In addition, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo, more than 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in just the last six years. The vast majority of them took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

And please do not forget that corruption within the Mexican government is rampant. Many news sources have covered stories of how drug cartels bribe Mexican officials. An article in the New York Times last year reported, "One of Mexico's most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general's office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations . . . the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy."

The Mexican drug cartels control a multi-billion dollar enterprise that has more than enough resources to obtain planeloads of weapons from all over the world. For Obama to assert that 90% of the Mexican drug cartels' firearms come from the United States is a bald-faced lie! Again, either Obama is stupid and naïve or he is deliberately lying to the American people in order to "sell" the CIFTA treaty to the U.S. Senate. I think we all know that Mr. Obama is anything but stupid and naïve.

In addition to the CIFTA treaty, liberal Chicago Democrat Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced H.R. 45 in the House of Representatives. This bill is anything but subtle. It is an in-your-face gun control bill that would make "Mr. Gun Control," the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, shout Hallelujah.

H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner's family.

In all likelihood, H.R. 45 is probably a long shot at passing both houses of Congress, albeit gun owners should never take any proposed gun control bill for granted. The CIFTA treaty, however, is much more dangerous due to its subtlety and subterfuge, the less cumbersome process of passage, and the fact that it makes U.S. gun owners subject to international gun control laws.

All in all, freedom in America is on the Obama White House chopping block. And this much is certain: if the American people do not retain the right to keep and bear arms, every other freedom we hold dear will quickly disappear as well. Moreover, if we do retain the right to keep and bear arms, it will only be because enough of us--and our state and federal legislators--resist the tyrannical gun control machinations of Barack Obama. And that means defeating the CIFTA treaty and H.R. 45."

More info on H.R. 45

"HR 45 May be More Troubling Than the Average Anti-gun Bill
WRITTEN BY MIKE HAMMOND
WEDNESDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2009 10:37
HR 45 May be More Troubling Than the Average Anti-gun Bill
-- Legislation may reflect Obama's thinking


by Mike Hammond


Those of you who regularly peruse the GOA website know that there are dozens of anti-gun abominations which are introduced as legislation in the Senate and House each Congress. These include, particularly, national gun licensing and broad gun bans.

GOA provides a summary of these bills for the benefit of our m
Top
Posted by tom regan (+1263) 11 years ago
The M-16 is made in Belgium?!
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1888) 11 years ago
I'm real sure the Founding Fathers wanted to keep assault-type weapons
in the hands of the mentally ill, the immature and the paranoid.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8352) 11 years ago
that the citizens had a way to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Have you seen the kind of guns that tyrannical governments possess? I don't think they've got much to worry about, no matter how many dumbasses go play army out in the woods on the weekends.

Can anyone point out a successful revolution in the last fifty years that didn't have serious external funding? Who's going to PAY for your glorious revolution? Texas?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (4/24/2009)]
Top
Posted by Charleen Schliep (+19) 11 years ago
I'm real sure the Founding Fathers wanted to keep assault-type weapons in the hands of the mentally ill, the immature and the paranoid.

Really? I am sure the women that had been beaten on a daily bases by her ex husband may seem a little paranoid but she has every right to be. As far as the mentally ill, You have to have a background check before purchasing a gun. That includes medications.

Tickets are also being sold at Red Rock Sporting Goods.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3707) 11 years ago
Check out the history of the US's success in fighting guerrilla forces despite massively greater firepower. Gigantic standing armies are not that useful against armed guerrillas if they have the sympathy of the local citizens.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8352) 11 years ago
That was the part where "funding" came in Levi - all those guerrilla's had some external group dumping arms & cash their way.

I'm really racking my brains for an example of a self-funded guerrilla force that was able to achieve measurable success against a state with a modern first-world security apparatus. I'm probably missing some glaring example, but most of the "revolutions" (orange, carnation, cedar,etc), I can think of didn't involve much (if any) fighting.

Charleen - why would that battered wife require an assault-style weapon. If she wouldn't/couldn't get the authorities involved, then shouldn't a perfectly legal handgun fit the bill?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (4/24/2009)]
Top
Posted by Dillpickle (+29) 11 years ago
Top
Posted by Danny (+10) 11 years ago
It's not fear mongering. Lets just say we allow the government to say you are allowed this gun but not that gun. Where then do you draw the line? Will the government then be able to tell you, you can say this but not that? I own several guns and I enjoy hunting and target shooting, I am a responsible parent and make good choices. I am not a radical but I strongly believe That our Constitution was written the way it was for a reason, to keep big government in check. Stand up for what so many died for, your liberty.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1888) 11 years ago
That works both ways, Danny. Should you be allowed to keep a grenade launcher? How about a nuke? Where do YOU draw the line? Or shouldn't there be any line? The NRA doesn't seem to think there should be a line.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8352) 11 years ago
I am not a radical but I strongly believe That our Constitution was written the way it was for a reason, to keep big government in check.

Okay... so I'll ask again. Can you offer me an example of an armed rebellion succeeding against a state with a modern military and security framework? When you look around at your neighbors, do they look like they're going to get fired up over changes in the marginal tax rate and highway funding?

Or is this just a fantasy where people shout "Wolverines!!!" a lot?
Top
Posted by Danny (+10) 11 years ago
Merely my humble opinion. There is no doubt that this is a sensitive subject. It's good there are forums such as this to spark debate.
Top
Posted by Danny (+10) 11 years ago
As far as where I draw the line, I have no need for a grenade launcher or a nuke. I just enjoy the shooting sports. It's a shame that people will not be able to afford the things they love like shooting because of the increased taxes on ammunition and bans.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1888) 11 years ago
Bummer. I imagine an assault rifle burns up the ammo pretty quickly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+426) 11 years ago
For those of you who have never read this, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

" 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. "

"free State" here does not refer to a centralized federal government. That's why "State" was capitalized.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

The meaning of this statement should be clear to even the biggest moron among you.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the SCOTUS upheld the 2nd Amendment as a "personal right" to keep and bear Arms.

The 2nd Amendment is one of those "negative Liberties" Obama likes to talk about.

I always understood them to be "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Heavy emphasis on Liberty.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
It's not fear mongering. Lets just say we allow the government to say you are allowed this gun but not that gun. Where then do you draw the line?

If it wasn't fearmongering, you wouldn't have to resort to the whole paranoid, "Dat sumb***h Muzzlim Obama bin Laden's gonna take all r gunz!" argument. You wouldn't have to resort to falsehoods to advertise your point. If you used truth, you wouldn't need fear.

I am all for the ownership and usage of firearms, but along with the right to bear arms, so also must come the obligation to bear them responsibly. You can't have one without the other.

The Founders DID NOT envision automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. In their day, a firearm (a single shot musket or pistol) was not only a means by which a person could defend themselves, it was also a tool used to put food on the table. There was also the very real threat of invasion from a foreign power. Such a threat does not presently exist.

You may also note that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear cannons, which were the machine guns of the day.

When the United States was in its infancy, the country did not have much of a standing army to defend its borders. As a result, an armed militia was vital. To be a viable force, the militia needed to be armed. The right to have an armed militia - a well-regulated armed militia, mind you - was deemed necessary. Second Amendment chest-thumpers so often forget the "well-regulated" part of the equation.

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was intended as an unfettered right. Again, "the right to keep and bear arms" is what was guaranteed - NOT the right to bear cannons or weapons of wholesale destruction. Do you need a machine gun or a weapon that has a 30-round magazine? Only if you feel the need to kill a person.

And, let's be real, the government tells people what they can and cannot do all of the time. I, for one, enjoy living in a non-anarchist society. Methinks you probably do too.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Jimbo has arrived to set us all straight!

"free State" here does not refer to a centralized federal government. That's why "State" was capitalized."

Um, by that logic, please tell me which "State" (by your definition) the U.S. Secretary of State represents.

"State" refers to "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign." (source: http://www.merriam-webste...nary/state)

"State" is capitalized in the Constitution because it's a noun. You'll find that many nouns were capitalized in the document (Militia, Arms, Powers, Year, People, Citizen, Inhabitant, Taxes, Number, Service, Term, Manner, Least ... the List goes on ...). In this context, "a free State" is equivalent to "a free country."

Another "word" in the Constitution: "chuse" (as in "choose")

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The meaning of this statement should be clear to even the biggest moron among you.


Please be so kind as to also provide for us the definition of "well-regulated," Jimbo. Your ilk is always skipping over that part.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/24/2009)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+308) 11 years ago
Nice post Brian!

I wanted to add some comments to Charlene regarding her statement about women.

The NRA uses the logic that by being armed, women are safer. This however, is not true, for every time a women used a handgun in the United States to kill in self-defense, 101 women died in handgun homicides, according to a new Violence Policy Center report. Furthermore, most of the women who used a handgun in self-defense knew her attacker.

Additionally, "[a] report released today [June13, 2006] by the Children's Defense Fund (CDF,) and based upon data collected by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) finds that more children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003 than American fighting men and women killed in hostile action in the first three years of the Iraq war combined.

In all, 2,827 kids and teens were killed in the United States during the calendar year that marked the US invasion of Iraq. At last count, the Department of Defense reports 2,497 US soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://www.rawstory.com/n..._0613.html.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4456) 11 years ago
Charlene, who is going to take your gun away?

Jim, who is going to take your gun away?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (4/25/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Buck - These guys:



Watch out for guy on the right (next to the BMP). He looks like one of those them sumbi**h liberals. :spitstobaccyindisgust:

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/25/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Will the government then be able to tell you, you can say this but not that?

I, for one, just hate it when the gummint tells me that I can't sell tainted beef to school children. Who's the FDA and USDA to tell me that I can't sell recycled circus animals to the school district?

I also can't stand it that I'm not allowed to print my own currency. It's the ONLY thing keeping me from being rich.

I'd also really like it if I could negotiate treaties with foreign countries without THE MAN telling me who I can and can't talk to.
Top
Posted by Dillpickle (+29) 11 years ago
What was it? 1994 when the original ban went into place? I don't seem to recall any of our rights disappearing then.

If memory serves me correctly, the on job death rate for police fell after the ban. There were fewer guns in the hands of criminals...

I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure it could be googled.

Seems to me if people just need something to get excited about.

Last deer I ate that was taken with a mini 14 was pretty crunchy too.
Top
Posted by Terry Roelfsema (+14) 11 years ago
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Top
Posted by Terry Roelfsema (+14) 11 years ago
If you don't believe the left wants your guns, read the latest bills that have been filed by anti-gun legislators. Google search will tell you that if they had the votes, there would be many changes. Join the NRA.

I have to wonder how many of you that see no problem with more gun laws know what was banned in the 1994 gun ban and how many more have been proposed?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9804) 11 years ago
> No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.

I want a shoulder-launched rocket thingy-ma-jiggy -- seems kind of cool if I could watch a deer literally explode. If not that, then how about a really high-caliber machine gun that I can mount to the top of my truck and spit out 1,000 rounds a minute? Any idea if the NRA can hook me up with where to purchase one?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9804) 11 years ago
Oh, and also in regards to the quote:

> No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.

If correct, those are the words from the father of our constitution, who also happened to be an adulterer and had sex with his slaves. (Bill Clinton is probably still wondering where the media was back then.)

What is a "free man"? I assume it is someone who is not in prison or not a slave?

I guess that means felons (after they've served their time) are then "free men", and as such should not be "de-barred the use of arms" either then, eh?
Top
Posted by Danny (+10) 11 years ago
Friends of NRA Banquet
June 5th
Tickets are on sale now. Come down and join us for good food, good friends, and a good time. Lots of games and raffles, silent and live auction. If you are interested in tickets they are on sale at Red Rock Sporting Goods or call 406 545 9658 Charleen
406 545 9985 Dan
Hope to see you there.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+426) 11 years ago
"Please be so kind as to also provide for us the definition of "well-regulated," Jimbo. Your ilk is always skipping over that part."

Here's their definition: That the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008-Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and
that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.


(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30-32.


(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

From: "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER"

"The Founders DID NOT envision automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. In their day, a firearm (a single shot musket or pistol) was not only a means by which a person could defend themselves, it was also a tool used to put food on the table. There was also the very real threat of invasion from a foreign power. Such a threat does not presently exist.

You may also note that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear cannons, which were the machine guns of the day.

When the United States was in its infancy, the country did not have much of a standing army to defend its borders. As a result, an armed militia was vital. To be a viable force, the militia needed to be armed. The right to have an armed militia - a well-regulated armed militia, mind you - was deemed necessary. Second Amendment chest-thumpers so often forget the "well-regulated" part of the equation.

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was intended as an unfettered right. Again, "the right to keep and bear arms" is what was guaranteed - NOT the right to bear cannons or weapons of wholesale destruction. Do you need a machine gun or a weapon that has a 30-round magazine? Only if you feel the need to kill a person."

What unabashed arrogance you have to lecture us on what the Founders did or did not envision or what their definition of "Arms" was with your limited scope of history. You never even bothered to read "Heller" before making an ass of yourself by pulling an out-of-context phrase from the prefatory clause and demanding an answer to your question.
Top
Posted by Donna Kingsley Coffeen (+405) 11 years ago
The NRA somehow got my husbands name and send him all sorts of junk and call here all the time. He is a hunter, but he is against almost all of what the "Riffle" Assn. stands for. Next time they call I am thinking of telling them he is not here--he was shot.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2738) 11 years ago
Donna - Great idea! If you actually do it, would you please record the exchange - THAT has the potential to be a "killer" conversation!
Top
Posted by Matt Schmitz (+409) 11 years ago
I recently joined the NRA, and still have a sick taste in my mouth. I had to join to have access to the only local gun range. Nobody wants to prevent you or I from having legitimate hunting weapons at our disposal. But to repeat the obvious, these automatic weapons are simply killing machines. They serve no purpose to law abiding citizens, other than chopping down trees. Which is really quite fun. I have done it myself. But if we as americans keep trying to allow unfetered access to any firearm we chose to own, we are going to lose the fight to keep the hunting weapons we enjoy. Or weapons we own to protect ourselves.
Back to the original point of this topic. I gag when I come across the NRA membership card in my wallet. They cross the line every day, insisting that the founders meant any and all weapons. But in order to have access to the local range, to improve my skills with a shotgun, I was forced to join. But I will never attend any NRA events. Before I received my membership card in the mail, I had already been pestered twice to extend my membership. Pretty rambunctious folks them gunnys are.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1291) 11 years ago
Buy them, collect them, trade them as long as it's a no smoking event I'm all for it.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
What unabashed arrogance you have to lecture us on what the Founders did or did not envision or what their definition of "Arms" was with your limited scope of history.

So says the mental giant who believes that because "State" is capitalized in the Constitution, it refers to individual states instead of the nation as a whole. Funny, considering that it's the Constitution of the United States.

Are you telling me that the Founders did envision automatic and semi-automatic weapons? What "unabashed arrogance" on your part to believe that they did. (Again you illustrate how the intricacies of Time are not your strong suit. You're not exactly Doctor Who when it comes to such things.)

Besides, if the founders did envision such weapons, how odd is it that they didn't put them to use in the War of 1812. One would think if they knew what they were, they could have used them when the White House was being torched in 1814.

You never even bothered to read "Heller" before making an ass of yourself by pulling an out-of-context phrase from the prefatory clause and demanding an answer to your question.

I'm still looking for where Heller guarantees might right to bear such Arms as tanks and Stinger missiles and Vulcan 20MM cannons. Can you show me where I missed that?

By its very existence, Heller reaffirms that the ownership of guns is subject to the law. When the Ted Nugents of the world start harping "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!" they tend to leave the law at that. Heller simply reiterated that citizens have the right to bear arms (which I don't have a personal problem with). It does NOT state that right is unfettered and unregulated. It does NOT say that I can have an anti-tank weapon system.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1888) 11 years ago
I'll be there!

Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+426) 11 years ago
Your arrogance lives in the fact that Brian is always "right" because "he say's so". Your posts are moderately entertaining because there is plethora of verbiage with so little fact. Please bore me with some back-up for a change. Perhaps, a source for your extensive knowledge of the structure of 18th Century English? (Wikipedia is not a source; it's like you; an opinion)

Even stupid people can envision what the future may hold. If you don't believe the Founders were visionaries, you're brain-dead. In case you haven't noticed, we have been in an arms race since the first monkey picked up a club and whacked his cousin. The ideas for improving the way we kill each other have always been there and always will be. The technology advances as the knowledge base grows. (See the works of Leonardo DaVinci among thousands of others.)

All the uproar about RPG's, bazooka's, grenades "Nooklear Weapons" is a vacuous argument. All Rights bear responsibilities to individuals and society as a whole. That's exactly why "Heller" points out that the 2nd amendment is not an unfettered Right.

I'm not advocating for machine-gun stores on every corner and I don't think anyone but a few crazies are either. I believe in accepting the responsibility in order to enjoy the Right. I believe that responsible persons who have extensive training in advanced weapons such as full auto assault weapons or machine guns are allowed to possess them under the 2nd Amendment. I personally believe that citizens should have to produce acceptable proof of qualification to possess any gun openly or concealed as part of their 2nd Amendment responsibility. That "proof of qualification" could come through military service or from an authorized or licensed private source. I do not believe that ANY government entity has the authority to track guns or ammo by registration to individuals.

I am not in the NRA nor am I a supporter of the NRA for my own reasons. In my experience with the organization, I don't think the NRA has ever advocated for anything other than the right of responsible gun ownership and training.

Ted Nugent? Nugent is a rock star which precludes him from having a brain, I suppose. In this video, Nugent is expressing his belief in Natural Law as did many of the Founders you profess to know so much about (Read the Declaration of Independence). What, specifically, do you find offensive in what he has to say here? (Other than his comment about your heroes)



When you bring up spokesmen for the NRA, how about Cam Edwards or Mike McCarville? Why don't you bring these people up?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4456) 11 years ago
Uh... Wikipedia is a source, not an opinion... it's like an encyclopedia and has been accepted as such in pinko commie educational institutions of higher learning
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Your arrogance lives in the fact that Brian is always "right" because "he say's so". Your posts are moderately entertaining because there is plethora of verbiage with so little fact. Please bore me with some back-up for a change. Perhaps, a source for your extensive knowledge of the structure of 18th Century English? (Wikipedia is not a source; it's like you; an opinion)

It's only an "opinion" if someone other than yourself thinks that way, right?

"Plethora" and "verbiage" - have you been studying up on your 25-cent words today, Jim? Good job.

Have you read your posts lately, Mr. Walking Shadow*? Since you've done such an excellent** job of providing sources for what you spout (Heller notwithstanding - after all, all you did by providing it was to gild the lily and argue a point that no one was debating. Again, good job with that), how has anything you've posted been substantiated? Or is that just part of your "Crap! I've got nothing, better bluff!" bluster?

* Refer to Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5
** facetiousness implied for those who are not sarcasm-minded (meaning you, Jimbo).

Since you're the ONLY one who has any knowledge whatsoever when it comes to the inner workings of the Founders' minds, would you be so magnanimous to share your source for this gem of wisdom:

"free State" here does not refer to a centralized federal government. That's why "State" was capitalized.

Lead by example, O' Hater of Unsubstantiated Opinion! What is the basis of your 18th Century English knowledge? If I am wrong, tell me why all of the other words I provided from the Constitution were capitalized. Where's your back-up?

I don't have a problem with Ted Nugent the Person or Ted Nugent the Rock Star (thanks for feeling compelled to inform me that he was a rock star). I don't have a problem with Ted Nugent the Naturalist or Ted Nugent the Bowhunter.

The Ted Nugent I have a problem with is Ted Nugent the I NEED an M-60 to Enjoy Life gun nut. I have a problem with his bloodlust/compulsion to destroy wildlife in order to enjoy it. There are more than a few things with which I finding myself agreeing when it comes to Ted Nugent. Guns are not one of them.

In my earlier post, I used "Ted Nugent" as a euphemism for "Gun Nut." I guess I should apologize for making it so difficult for you to follow.

If you don't believe the Founders were visionaries, you're brain-dead.

But I thought even stupid (generally considered to be synonymous with "brain-dead") people could envision what the future holds? I'm confused. Of course I believe the Founders were visionaries, Jimbo. That's not to say that they had a specific vision when it came to automatic weapons.

I'm not advocating for machine-gun stores on every corner and I don't think anyone but a few crazies are either. I believe in accepting the responsibility in order to enjoy the Right. I believe that responsible persons who have extensive training in advanced weapons such as full auto assault weapons or machine guns are allowed to possess them under the 2nd Amendment. I personally believe that citizens should have to produce acceptable proof of qualification to possess any gun openly or concealed as part of their 2nd Amendment responsibility. That "proof of qualification" could come through military service or from an authorized or licensed private source. I do not believe that ANY government entity has the authority to track guns or ammo by registration to individuals.

I don't know if disagree with anything you've posted here. In fact, I believe that's exactly what I said when I posted the following:

I am all for the ownership and usage of firearms, but along with the right to bear arms, so also must come the obligation to bear them responsibly. You can't have one without the other.

The problem comes when the gun lobby steadfastly opposes any of the "licensing" you've mentioned and calls it an egregious infringement of Second Amendment rights.

I still don't believe that certain types of weapons are necessary. Really, why does a person need a machine gun?
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1591) 11 years ago
"If you don't believe the Founders were visionaries, you're brain-dead."

The founding fathers were visionaries because they were well read. They read Lock and Voltaire and plagerized there ideas of democracy and freedom.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+14321) 11 years ago
As goofy as Ted Nugent sounds today, he has a lifetime pass in my judgement for the 5 albums he put out from 1973 to 1977. On opposite spectrums, Brian hates him for being an NRA poster boy, Jim hates him for being a rock star.......but listen to "Hibernation" or "Stranglehold".......all will be forgiven.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Stranglehold and Great White Buffalo have always been two of my all-time faves.
Top
Posted by tjh (+136) 11 years ago
Ok I will say I am a sports man and an outdoorsman. I do beleive that all people in sane mind, and with a clean record should be able to have guns.

Although they do need to watch what all they sell to people. Honestly why do you need an AR 15, "Because it looks cool"??
I will support any organization that supports sportsmen.

Ted Nudget is one of the people that I wouldn't trust with a gun. He's a nutcase!! eek!
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1888) 11 years ago
I loved the self titled album with "Stranglehold", "Motor City Madhouse" etc, but it seemed like all of his albums after that were rehashes. "Cat Scratch Fever" is a pretty weak song in my opinion. I agree "White Buffalo" was a great song.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
I, for one, won't be satisfied until all eight-year olds have their very own Constitutionally-guaranteed "Uzi Day." My understanding is that it's kind of like a Bar Mitzvah for the MyColdDeadHands crowd.

It is their right, after all.

http://www.nbcconnecticut..._Show.html

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/26/2009)]
Top
Posted by Danny (+10) 11 years ago
One can not legally own a "machine gun". (Without proper lisence)I do believe there is a great responsibility in gun ownership.

[This message has been edited by Danny (4/26/2009)]

[This message has been edited by Danny (4/26/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
One can not legally own a "machine gun*".

*Without proper license

**Sarcasm Alert**

But ... but ... but I'm confused! I thought the Founders said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Besides, it's in the bible somewhere, isn't it?

If it's illegal for someone to own a machine gun, doesn't that constitute infringement?

And if firearms have already been subject to government regulation, why all the continued paranoia and "slippery slope" arguments from the MCDH crowd?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/26/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6172) 11 years ago
Ted Nugent was my first rock concert. Saw him in Michigan in 1981, I think. He's a nutter but I have fond memories of that concert.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+426) 11 years ago
Brian

It's obvious from your posts that you do not understand the concept of the Constitution, why it was framed and what it is intended to do. It is in place to limit government powers. It confers nothing on the people because it is assumes that the people ALREADY HAVE THESE RIGHTS and the government does NOT have the power to "infringe". If it does it is in violation. Because you apparently cannot grasp this simple concept, you do not understand what the debate is about which is probably why you continue to post idiotic statements such as:

" And if firearms have already been subject to government regulation, why all the continued paranoia and "slippery slope" arguments from the MCDH crowd?"

Here is a suggestion. Since you wouldn't be caught dead buying one, go steal a copy of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" and try to read it with an open mind. Subject yourself to something besides your own point of view for a change.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
It's obvious from your posts that you do not understand the concept of the Constitution, why it was framed and what it is intended to do. It is in place to limit government powers. It confers nothing on the people because it is assumes that the people ALREADY HAVE THESE RIGHTS and the government does NOT have the power to "infringe". If it does it is in violation. Because you apparently cannot grasp this simple concept, you do not understand what the debate is about which is probably why you continue to post idiotic statements such as: (blah blah blah)

First off, I would warn you against getting into an argument what either of us can and cannot understand. You will not win that debate.

Secondly, the Constitution does not just "limit" governmental powers. It is the very foundation of governmental powers in this country. It may not confer anything to the people, per se, but it does insure the rights listed therein.

Here is a suggestion. Since you wouldn't be caught dead buying one, go steal a copy of Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" and try to read it with an open mind. Subject yourself to something besides your own point of view for a change.

You really are a small-minded man, Jim. Opinions are only unsubstantiated if they're contrary to what you personally espouse, right? Right.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (4/27/2009)]
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1291) 11 years ago
Brian,Jim have you guys figured out which one of you has the biggest dick yet?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6172) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8352) 11 years ago
One way to keep Obama from taking your guns: http://www.nwfdailynews.c...uties.html
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Brian,Jim have you guys figured out which one of you has the biggest dick yet?

I like my chances.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+426) 11 years ago
I like Brians chances with "is".
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1888) 11 years ago
Jim by a nose!
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
He can have it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4456) 11 years ago
Mine is bigger, I receive disability as a result of it's hugeness.

And get back on topic, we're talking about riffles here. Anyone seen any later?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (4/27/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6021) 11 years ago
Quit making me jones for a quiet stream full o' brookies, Buck.
Top