This is a very pretty post but Christmas ended weeks ago.:sssh:

 

 

Yeah? Your avatar had me confused.

 

I had to post in Red. Orange would have been cool, but I wasn't feeling "Irish". So, blue was an option, but I don't "do" blue. So, of course, Red is the choice in my house!

Question: If the philosophical logic for having an armed citizenry is to keep the government in check (i.e. impede tyranny), which is my basis for argument at least, then how does a government go about confiscating guns? Either the confiscation of guns is not tyrannical, or having guns doesn't prevent tyranny. Thoughts?

The U.S. Department of Justice officially adopted the historically correct interpretation that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. In briefs filed May 6, 2002, with the U.S. Supreme Court, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson wrote that the position of the United States is that "the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms."

 

Thought I'd add a little color myself.

The meanings of the term "keep and bear arms" are integral to the debate and much of the amendment jurisprudence relies on such interpretations.

 

Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, one study found "...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service". Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

 

The United States Declaration of Independence uses the expression "bear arms" in the sense of military duty on a ship.

In a letter to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote, "The current position of the United States is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms." That right, however, continued Olson is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

No need to bring birth control into this! :irked:

Oh, my!!!:lol:

In a letter to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote, "The current position of the United States is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms." That right, however, continued Olson is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particulary suited to criminal use."

 

Did they list those types? Can someone list them for us? Did they define unfit? Does it depend on "what the defination of is is" ??:lol::lol::lol:

The meanings of the term "keep and bear arms" are integral to the debate and much of the amendment jurisprudence relies on such interpretations.

 

Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, one study found "...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service". Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

 

The United States Declaration of Independence uses the expression "bear arms" in the sense of military duty on a ship.

Despite anti-gunners' claims that the Second Amendment is a "collective right," the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it as an individual right in several landmark cases.

Contrary to the assertion of the gun prohibitionists, the Second Amendment protects the same "people" as the other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights; namely you and me. This, of course, is entirely in keeping with the intent of the drafters of the Bill of Rights and also the Supreme Court's interpretation of the individual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

...the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it as an individual right in several landmark cases.

Which, of course, were quickly overturned by several more landmark cases. :lol:

To make the anti gun people happy, I'm forming my own militia. RTS, you want to join? We'll be the Blue Bird Militia. Thus, having formed our own militia, we now have an uncontrovertable right to keep our arms (and our legs too, although I've lost my head a time or two).:banana:

To make the anti gun people happy, I'm forming my own militia. RTS, you want to join? We'll be the Blue Bird Militia. Thus, having formed our own militia, we now have an uncontrovertable right to keep our arms (and our legs too, although I've lost my head a time or two).:banana:

 

 

Hey hey! Don't forget me!

 

Do you have to call it the Blue Bird Militia? Doesn't really fit PepRock.

Hey hey! Don't forget me!

 

Do you have to call it the Blue Bird Militia? Doesn't really fit PepRock.

"The Burninator Militia" would just sound silly.

Which, of course, were quickly overturned by several more landmark cases. :lol:

Umm, no.

To make the anti gun people happy, I'm forming my own militia. RTS, you want to join? We'll be the Blue Bird Militia. Thus, having formed our own militia, we now have an uncontrovertable right to keep our arms (and our legs too, although I've lost my head a time or two).:banana:

:lol: I'm in like Flynn! :dancingpa

Umm, no.

Denny Crane! :thumb:

Denny Crane! :thumb:

You have Mad Cow? :eek: :lol: