PDA

View Full Version : Anti CCW, Gun Banner's Thread in P&R


ed_in_az
2nd March 2007, 15:53
In case anybody missed it.:smoke

http://xlforum.net/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?t=48697

doc
2nd March 2007, 15:57
Ah hell Ed. I don't think WOO is anti-CCW or for the banning of guns. He's more of the let's make it so hard to get a CCW that nobody will try.

ed_in_az
2nd March 2007, 16:02
Look again!

Check out his "well regulated milita" post. That's the bottom line.

Snuffy
2nd March 2007, 17:45
Why did you ad "anti" that was never said, just needed to be improved, you're the one that got himself all lathered up over a comment or opinion

Wizzard Of Odds
2nd March 2007, 18:01
Look again!

Check out his "well regulated milita" post. That's the bottom line.

I don't think so Ed!

The bottom line is that people like you serve to stifle reasonable discussion in this country by shouting lies about people like me, people with genuine concerns that I believe can be addressed without taking a single gun from any law-abiding American,

You put words in my mouth, you ignore my requests for a REAL response to my points, and then you run over here to the gun forum to burn me at the stake.

What a man you are!

Let me tell you something. I protected your rights when I fought for my country on three continents as a US Marine. I protected the rights and safety of the public as a federal law enforcement officer. And I protect the Constitutional rights of ordinary Americans every day of my life as a criminal defense attorney. So what have you done to protect your rights? What great piece of activism have you contributed? And who in the hell are you to condemn me as a "gun banner?"

I own 30+ firearms. I've shot IPSC for over a decade. I'm a veteran. I'm a firearm safety instructor. I campaigned hard at the local level in support of Michigan's CCW law in 2001.

All I've said is that I BELIEVE better screening and training should be in place for CCW holders to get a permit. That's all. What in the hell is wrong with preventing the insane from carrying concealed weapons? Since when is more training a BAD IDEA?

Wizzard Of Odds
2nd March 2007, 18:06
Ah hell Ed. I don't think WOO is anti-CCW or for the banning of guns.

He's more of the let's make it so hard to get a CCW that nobody will try.

Nope, I encourage people to apply for CCWs every day. I just believe that those that are given the permits should be competent and qualified.

ed_in_az
2nd March 2007, 18:20
Wizard, have you ever fought to free a person you knew was guilty?

Yes, it IS relevant here. The NRA bases the defense of our freedom to bear arms on the 2nd ammendment because it is defensible against weasel lawyers. The "Militia Act" to which you refer in the other thread is not.

Snuffy
2nd March 2007, 18:33
Wizard, have you ever fought to free a person you knew was guilty?

Yes, it IS relevant here. The NRA bases the defense of our freedom to bear arms on the 2nd ammendment because it is defensible against weasel lawyers. The "Militia Act" to which you refer in the other thread is not.

I think but I'm not sure here Ed but that law enacted men to carry and bear arms in the defense of a new nation that did not have a standing army, and it continues to this day. Is there something between the lines that you are reading and the rest of us are missing. Please enlighten us

cigarman
2nd March 2007, 18:58
Hmm, why don't I have access to it??

Wizzard Of Odds
2nd March 2007, 19:07
Wizard, have you ever fought to free a person you knew was guilty?

I am obligated by my oath and by the law to provide the best defense possible for all of my clients, regardless of my opinion regarding their guilt. And before you suggest that I could just 'withdraw' from a case where I "knew" my client was guilty, this is not possible. It is justification for immediate disbarment in this state.

But to answer your question, yes. How could someone who's caught driving with a BAC of .10 be innocent?

Yes, it IS relevant here.

All I can do is fight for their rights, and hope that justice is served. My opinion regarding guilt or innocence really is not relevant to my job, nor is it relative to this discussion.

All I see is you attempting to change the topic to an attack on me, this is pretty common when someone can't muster the information or tactics to address someone's actual positions.

The NRA bases the defense of our freedom to bear arms on the 2nd ammendment because it is defensible against weasel lawyers.

The "Militia Act" to which you refer in the other thread is not.


Really, well, according to the NRA's Policy Statement of the National Rifle Association on Extremist Organizations and Militia Groups:

The NRA strongly supports the Constitution of the United States, and the Second Amendment to that document, which guarantee the right of citizens to participate in militias for proper, lawful and constitutional purposes.
FURTHER, it is the NRA's view, based on law (Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 311(a)), court precedents, and legal and historical interpretation, that all able-bodied persons, explicitly those between the ages of 17 and 45, are members of the Federal unorganized militia, except members of the organized state guards (for example, State Defense Forces which exist in about two dozen states), the National Guards of the various states (which also serve as a part of the National Guard of the United States, a military reserve subject to nationalization by the President of the United States), and certain government officials. An "organized citizen militia" must be created under the constitution itself and/or the laws of a state.
Title 10, U.S.C., clearly affirms the existence of the citizen militia; it is little changed since the original Militia Act of 1792 (except for the addition in this century of recognition of the third type of militia, the Federally supported National Guard, in addition to the enrolled and unenrolled militia).
Gee, the NRA said the same thing I said.



It seems that the only point that the NRA and I don't agree on is whether the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" is dependent upon the militia clause. 200 years of legal precedents say it does, and the NRA says it doesn't. This would appear to be the only point upon which we disagree.

Would you now care to justify your description of me as a "gun banner?"

Or would you rather keep running in circles and insulting my profession?

klown
2nd March 2007, 19:32
Ed, why are you making dishonest claims. I'm gonna have to tell you're moms on you tonight. :smoke

celtic
2nd March 2007, 19:56
I don't think so Ed!

The bottom line is that closed minded people like you serve to stifle reasonable discussion in this country by shouting lies about people like me, people with genuine concerns that I believe can be addressed without taking a single gun from any law-abiding American,

You put words in my mouth, you ignore my requests for a REAL response to my points, and then you run over here to the gun forum to burn me at the stake.

What a man you are!

Let me tell you something. I protected your rights when I fought for my country on three continents as a US Marine. I protected the rights and safety of the public as a federal law enforcement officer. And I protect the Constitutional rights of ordinary Americans every day of my life as a criminal defense attorney. So what have you done to protect your rights? What great piece of activism have you contributed? And who in the hell are you to condemn me as a "gun banner?"

I own 30+ firearms. I've shot IPSC for over a decade. I'm a veteran. I'm a firearm safety instructor. I campaigned hard at the local level in support of Michigan's CCW law in 2001.

All I've said is that I BELIEVE better screening and training should be in place for CCW holders to get a permit. That's all. What in the hell is wrong with preventing the insane from carrying concealed weapons? Since when is more training a BAD IDEA?


oh

SNAP.




Ed,

i'm not usually one to tell somebody to be quiet, because i enjoy discussion,
but holy SHIT did you just get pwned. might wish to quit while you're behind.:doh

Wizzard Of Odds
2nd March 2007, 20:00
ED?


Would you now care to justify your description of me as a "gun banner?"



And for that matter, please also explain why you labeled me as anti CCW?

I expect you to back up these assertions or withdraw them, thanks.

cantolina
2nd March 2007, 20:14
Everyone take a breath.....this thread is in jeopardy....

Seriously...

Let's remember the only rules....

courtesy and respect....no name calling...

Thanx!

Wizzard Of Odds
2nd March 2007, 20:19
Everyone take a breath.....this thread is in jeopardy....

Seriously...

Let's remember the only rules....

courtesy and respect....no name calling...

Thanx!

Posts adjusted accordingly, thanks.

klown
2nd March 2007, 20:23
Yeah, I agree with celtic. I've never seen somebody bitch slapped this hard after being called out. Ouch!! Wiz, not only are you a gun owner, but you OWN ed also. OH SCHNAPP!!

klown--Booyah bait company :smoke

klown
2nd March 2007, 20:33
Hey ed, let's compromise. Quit calling me a gun banner which obviously isn't true. And I'll quit calling your moms a "sweet ride" which is obviously true. Whaddya say? :smoke

celtic
2nd March 2007, 20:43
i'm ashamed to say that got a chuckle out of me, you KLOWN!

:p

ed_in_az
2nd March 2007, 20:46
I only intended to alert those concerned with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" as to the presence of a political thread they might have an interest in. My intention was not that this would be an offshoot or continuation of the other. I will abandon this thread.

klown
2nd March 2007, 20:52
i'm ashamed to say that got a chuckle out of me, you KLOWN!

:p

Dude, if it's a chuckle you're after. Read through the archived P&R threads. Many funny things in there. There were a couple of threads in there were Ole was a few seconds from death, his heart almost exploded from his rise in blood pressure.:laugh :smoke

Wizzard Of Odds
2nd March 2007, 20:53
I only intended to alert those concerned with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" as to the presence of a political thread they might have an interest in. My intention was not that this would be an offshoot or continuation of the other. I will abandon this thread.

Oh, and please stop misquoting MY Constitution.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

"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".

It's all one sentence Ed!

So is it fair to assume that this a refusal to retract the untrue statements you've made about me?

Specifically that I'm anti-CCW and that I'm a "GUN BANNER", whatever in the hell that means?

Your clarification on this is appreciated?

celtic
2nd March 2007, 20:58
Dude, if it's a chuckle you're after. Read through the archived P&R threads. Many funny things in there. There were a couple of threads in there were Ole was a few seconds from death, his heart almost exploded from his rise in blood pressure.:laugh :smoke

yeah, but is Ole's mom as sweet a ride as Ed's?

inquiring minds want to know.

celtic
2nd March 2007, 21:02
oh, and didn't somebody's sister get bitten by a moose or somthing?

i always miss the good stuff.

klown
2nd March 2007, 21:03
yeah, but is Ole's mom as sweet a ride as Ed's?

inquiring minds want to know.

NOBODY, and I MEAN NOBODY is as sweet a ride as Ed's mom. THe gold standard if you will. But to answer your question, ole's mom is a close second, only difference between the two is second place has too many fat rolls in wrong places :laugh :smoke

klown--Booyah Bait company :smoke

celtic
2nd March 2007, 21:05
hey, no need to be a bigot.

fatties need love too.

Snuffy
2nd March 2007, 22:37
NOBODY, and I MEAN NOBODY is as sweet a ride as Ed's mom. THe gold standard if you will. But to answer your question, ole's mom is a close second, only difference between the two is second place has too many fat rolls in wrong places :laugh :smoke

klown--Booyah Bait company :smoke

I can see Ole and Ed punchin in the Rep on that one Klown:laugh :laugh

HellRazur
2nd March 2007, 23:33
If you take the Second Amendment at face value than to stop a nut that has the protection of the Constitution to own and ccw a gun is a infringment to his Second Amendement rights. And to call for any testing for a ccw is allso a infringment on are Second Amendment rights. I know that wanting to make it safe for us all than we must put in safeguards but the safeguards them selves are a infringment to are Second Amendement rights. I aint trying to start any $hit I am only stating the obvious.

ironhead7544
6th March 2007, 02:48
Wizzard: I cant read your other post, only the one here. I think the problem Ed has is that you believe the right to bear arms is dependant on the militia clause. I guess its depends on what your definition of "is" is. You are aligning yourself with the likes of the Clintons/Gore/Kerry/Edwards. If the right to keep and bear arms only belongs to the militia then the government could ban individuals from owning guns. Please note that when the language of the other amendments mentioned people, its an individual right not given to the states. The 2nd does not read state or federal gov into the language. By this interpetation the other rights of the people are a vague reference to an overall right, not an individual right. I dont know about you but I consider myself a "people". The "well regulated" clause was put there because of bad experiences with the militias in the Revolutionary War. The militia often ran off and there were no rules or laws to stop them. You could quit at any time with no penalties. Even the most rabid anti gun scholors of the Constitution admit, if they are honest, the the language means just what it says and the only way to change that is to make a new amendment.

Wizzard Of Odds
6th March 2007, 07:51
Wizzard: I cant read your other post, only the one here. I think the problem Ed has is that you believe the right to bear arms is dependant on the militia clause. I guess its depends on what your definition of "is" is. You are aligning yourself with the likes of the Clintons/Gore/Kerry/Edwards. If the right to keep and bear arms only belongs to the militia then the government could ban individuals from owning guns. Please note that when the language of the other amendments mentioned people, its an individual right not given to the states. The 2nd does not read state or federal gov into the language. By this interpetation the other rights of the people are a vague reference to an overall right, not an individual right. I dont know about you but I consider myself a "people". The "well regulated" clause was put there because of bad experiences with the militias in the Revolutionary War. The militia often ran off and there were no rules or laws to stop them. You could quit at any time with no penalties. Even the most rabid anti gun scholors of the Constitution admit, if they are honest, the the language means just what it says and the only way to change that is to make a new amendment.

This is all from my posts in the other thread (so forgive some of the tones), but I believe it addresses your thoughts.

And I can't really be put into the basket with the folks you named. I'm still a registered Republican. But for the record, I didn't leave them, they left me.

Existing legal precedents hold that the 2nd is dependent on the 'militia clause'. However, we are all part of the militia. In May of 1792, five months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed. That act distinguished between the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing of that act, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively (this is now universally understood to be all adult Americans), and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldnít refer to the organized militia because it didnít exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of citizens is armed and thatís why the Founding Fathers thought to place it in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist.

You see, we all have the right to own weapons. But nowhere are you guaranteed under federal law the right to carry them upon your person, much less concealed. This authority is left up to the individual states, and jurisdictions within them. The SCOTUS doesn't have to rule it correct (although they have) it's the law, and they have yet to rule it INCORRECT or UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In fact, at least 64 courts have agreed: 28 state courts of appeal, 17 federal district courts, 18 federal courts of appeal and a U.S. Supreme Court decision, all decided between 1939 and 2004.

Often a defendant charged with violating a firearm restriction will claim that the restriction infringes upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The courts have routinely and repeatedly held that unless the defendant shows that the firearm in question is related to involvement in a militia, the restriction is constitutional. Thus, our courts hold that states and the federal government can regulate private arms, and that the right to bear arms is collective, not individual.

Yes, the federally supported and civilian-staffed National Guard has replaced militias, but that does not change the original and court-confirmed meaning of the Second Amendment. To hold out only the last 14 words is a deception.

After he retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said it better: He complained that claims of Second Amendment protection for gun ownership were "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, and I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

These decisions hold, in effect, that the Second Amendment does not prevent either the federal or any state government from regulating, controlling or prohibiting any firearm as long as the law does not interfere with state militias.

This last bit is kind of key to my point, think about it, how could any U.S. city ban or limit handgun ownership if they didn't have the jurisdiction to do so? These limits have been challenged in court, and the limits have held up to the scrutiny of several Supreme Court challenges, without regard to the political leanings of the court.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to assure the continuation and effectiveness of militias. And by this amendment we are all granted the right to own firearms. This is however as far as this Constitutional guarantee goes.

Ghugly
6th March 2007, 21:40
WoO. This thread has caused me to hit the books and to a bit of re-reading on the second amendment. Thank you. You are spot on in your description, as far as it goes. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the purpose of the second amendment was to insure an armed citizenry capable of resisting a tyrannical oppressor, be it foreign or domestic. The belief at the time was that the federal government couldn't possibly field an army that could not be defeated by an armed general populace. The armed citizens had just defeated one oppressor and they wanted to be sure that they could do so again, if the need should arise.

Wizzard Of Odds
6th March 2007, 21:51
WoO. This thread has caused me to hit the books and to a bit of re-reading on the second amendment. Thank you.

That's cool.

And thanks for the support.

I believe that gun owners in general would be much better served by understanding the reality behind their rights, and perhaps they could focus their fight against restrictions on something more substantial than a myth. This myth of course being that only half of Amendment 2 is valid.

It's not about being against guns, it's just about being smarter in our pro-gun positions. The NRA crowd has been pushing the "universal gun ownership right" position for decades, and the courts just haven't bought it. Maybe they should instead focus on organizing responsible militias in every states. Something like this would withstand MUCH more scrutiny when held to the Constitutional test.

jaws
6th March 2007, 21:54
That's cool.

And thanks for the support.

I believe that gun owners in general would be much better served by understanding the reality behind their rights, and perhaps they could focus their fight against restrictions on something more substantial than a myth. This myth of course being that only half of Amendment 2 is valid.

It's not about being against guns, it's just about being smarter in our pro-gun positions. The NRA crowd has been pushing the "universal gun ownership right" position for decades, and the courts just haven't bought it. Maybe they should instead focus on organizing responsible militias in every states. Something like this would withstand MUCH more scrutiny when held to the Constitutional test.

WHHHHAAAAAATTTTTT?????????? You are not serious are you? Armed militias in every state not under direct government control?? Yeah that'll fly :laugh Works well for Eritrea too.

Wizzard Of Odds
6th March 2007, 21:59
WHHHHAAAAAATTTTTT?????????? You are not serious are you? Armed militias in every state not under direct government control?? Yeah that'll fly :laugh Works well for Eritrea too.

I'm sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear about my opinion. I'm not advocating these NRA militias. I was just making a point. If they were to form militias, their positions would be much more defensible under the Constitution than they currently are with their way-off-base interpretation of Amendment 2.

Oh, and I agree with you about Eritrea, I chewed enough dirt in Somalia to last a hundred lifetimes.

jaws
6th March 2007, 22:01
I'm sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear about my opinion. I'm not advocating these NRA militias. I was just making a point. If they were to form militias, their positions would be much more defensible under the Constitution than they currently are with their way-off-base interpretation of Amendment 2.

phhewww ok gotcha, guess I misunderstood :)

Ghugly
6th March 2007, 22:20
I have to admit mixed feelings concerning concealed carry in general and without regard to constitutional guarantees. I have no doubt that my permit has made a better citizen of me. I wasn't much of a drinker before getting the permit but now I will not drink at all, not even one glass of wine, if I'm armed, and I'm pretty much always armed. I'm a lot more conscious of traffic laws while armed, although I'm not really sure why. I'm more carefully about possible conflicts and avoiding them than I ever was before. I really don't want to find myself in a situation that requires lethal force, something I never really gave any thought to before the permit.

The counter to all of this goodness associated with concealed carry is the fact that not everyone is like me. I know and have known lots of people who should not have ready access to lethal force. People who are subject to fits of rage following little provocation. In short, I don't think everyone appreciates the responsibility that goes with the ability to apply instant death. And, I have no idea how one can ever be certain as to who should have that power.

It's a strange thing. Before getting the permit, I was a great believer in everyone being armed, an armed society is a polite society and all that. Now, I'm not so damned sure.

Ghugly
6th March 2007, 22:50
That's cool.

And thanks for the support.

I believe that gun owners in general would be much better served by understanding the reality behind their rights, and perhaps they could focus their fight against restrictions on something more substantial than a myth. This myth of course being that only half of Amendment 2 is valid.

It's not about being against guns, it's just about being smarter in our pro-gun positions. The NRA crowd has been pushing the "universal gun ownership right" position for decades, and the courts just haven't bought it. Maybe they should instead focus on organizing responsible militias in every states. Something like this would withstand MUCH more scrutiny when held to the Constitutional test.

I agree with you on an academic level. However, I don't think that protecting our constitutional guarantee of the tools necessary for armed insurrection is going to go very far as a means of promoting responsible gun ownership to the general populace.:doh

Wizzard Of Odds
7th March 2007, 00:25
I agree with you on an academic level. However, I don't think that protecting our constitutional guarantee of the tools necessary for armed insurrection is going to go very far as a means of promoting responsible gun ownership to the general populace.:doh

Excellent point.

Snuffy
7th March 2007, 19:54
What no more, geeehz just when it almost came to rapin and pillaging

jaws
9th March 2007, 21:43
That's cool.

And thanks for the support.

I believe that gun owners in general would be much better served by understanding the reality behind their rights, and perhaps they could focus their fight against restrictions on something more substantial than a myth. This myth of course being that only half of Amendment 2 is valid.

It's not about being against guns, it's just about being smarter in our pro-gun positions. The NRA crowd has been pushing the "universal gun ownership right" position for decades, and the courts just haven't bought it. Maybe they should instead focus on organizing responsible militias in every states. Something like this would withstand MUCH more scrutiny when held to the Constitutional test.

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

Crash03
13th March 2007, 00:03
WoO. This thread has caused me to hit the books and to a bit of re-reading on the second amendment. Thank you. You are spot on in your description, as far as it goes. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the purpose of the second amendment was to insure an armed citizenry capable of resisting a tyrannical oppressor, be it foreign or domestic. The belief at the time was that the federal government couldn't possibly field an army that could not be defeated by an armed general populace. The armed citizens had just defeated one oppressor and they wanted to be sure that they could do so again, if the need should arise.

It's good that you were willing to look past all this BS and do a little "leg work" but unless you looked at some of the ancillary writings of the men like Jefferson, you won't really get a clear picture and that may be why you came to the conclusion you did.

Wizzard Of Odds
13th March 2007, 00:19
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

I don't have an issue with the decision, but I disagree with the grounds.

The right of D.C. residents to own firearms is constitutional, but this weakening of the militia clause will not withstand a SCOTUS review.

jaws
13th March 2007, 04:23
I don't have an issue with the decision, but I disagree with the grounds.

The right of D.C. residents to own firearms is constitutional, but this weakening of the militia clause will not withstand a SCOTUS review.

Probably not, but I thought it interesting since you just mentioned it.