Comments on: SCOTUS To Decide On What “well regulated militia” Means http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/ in all matter of opinion, our adversaries are insane. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:05:09 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: FrmrArtyOffcr http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-674350 FrmrArtyOffcr Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:50:37 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-674350 Hey PCD, why not just shoot the liberals and not have to worry about shooting the policeman? That way we could kill one bad bird with one shot and not have to kill a good one. Hey PCD, why not just shoot the liberals and not have to worry about shooting the policeman? That way we could kill one bad bird with one shot and not have to kill a good one.

]]> By: PCD http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-674202 PCD Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:43:34 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-674202 I'll put it this way, anyone comes for my dad's Belgian Browning is going to get a sabot through the head. Also, If I have to shoot a cop, I'm going to not think twice about Liberal Democrats. I’ll put it this way, anyone comes for my dad’s Belgian Browning is going to get a sabot through the head.

Also, If I have to shoot a cop, I’m going to not think twice about Liberal Democrats.

]]> By: FrmrArtyOffcr http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-674103 FrmrArtyOffcr Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:19:42 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-674103 It's more than that Ted, it could be the spark that leads to another Revolutionary War. George Soros and crowd have been pushing for massive gun confiscation plans around the world. If this decision comes in the wrong way, we could be looking at Democratic administrations across the country enacting all forms of gun bans and using the police swat teams to enforce them like Mayor Dinkins did in New York. The difference is that unlike New York where the population was completely bamboozled by the liberal media and barely armed, there are cities in this country where a large percentage of the population is legally armed. The police won't be able to run around confiscating guns when there are millions of them in the city. It's a lot easier when there are only a few hundred. I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the Metro Phoenix area has over a million gun owners, most with multiple weapons. BTW for those who saw the big gun buy back on TV last week. Most of the guns I saw being turned in, weren't worth the $100 worth of groceries they were receiving. Some of them had retail values under $100 NEW. I did see one that I'd have offered the guy $200 for. It was a Colt Detective model with a value of around $400 in the condition it was in. It’s more than that Ted, it could be the spark that leads to another Revolutionary War. George Soros and crowd have been pushing for massive gun confiscation plans around the world. If this decision comes in the wrong way, we could be looking at Democratic administrations across the country enacting all forms of gun bans and using the police swat teams to enforce them like Mayor Dinkins did in New York. The difference is that unlike New York where the population was completely bamboozled by the liberal media and barely armed, there are cities in this country where a large percentage of the population is legally armed. The police won’t be able to run around confiscating guns when there are millions of them in the city. It’s a lot easier when there are only a few hundred. I wouldn’t hesitate to guess that the Metro Phoenix area has over a million gun owners, most with multiple weapons. BTW for those who saw the big gun buy back on TV last week. Most of the guns I saw being turned in, weren’t worth the $100 worth of groceries they were receiving. Some of them had retail values under $100 NEW. I did see one that I’d have offered the guy $200 for. It was a Colt Detective model with a value of around $400 in the condition it was in.

]]> By: TedintheShed http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-674061 TedintheShed Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:25:53 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-674061 IMO this is the lynch pin Constitutional law decision of our generation because this will mark just how much the Supreme Court will allow the Constitution to be eroded. IMO this is the lynch pin Constitutional law decision of our generation because this will mark just how much the Supreme Court will allow the Constitution to be eroded.

]]> By: FrmrArtyOffcr http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-674049 FrmrArtyOffcr Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:55:08 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-674049 They are filing a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the circuit court decision. Unfortunately, the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance reform bill, as is the case with every bill that McCain decides to partner with a Dem on, restricts the NRA and other NGOs from truthful running ads that would help Republicans just prior to an election, while allowing George Soros funded 527s to run all of the slanderous lies whenever they want. Of course, McCain/Feingold stops the NGOs from even airing rebuttal ads. They are filing a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the circuit court decision. Unfortunately, the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance reform bill, as is the case with every bill that McCain decides to partner with a Dem on, restricts the NRA and other NGOs from truthful running ads that would help Republicans just prior to an election, while allowing George Soros funded 527s to run all of the slanderous lies whenever they want. Of course, McCain/Feingold stops the NGOs from even airing rebuttal ads.

]]> By: Pam http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-673916 Pam Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:20:27 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-673916 FAO, What is the NRA planning to do about this..I thought the airwaves would be flooded with their people, but I haven't seen any.. FAO, What is the NRA planning to do about this..I thought the airwaves would be flooded with their people, but I haven’t seen any..

]]> By: FrmrArtyOffcr http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-673914 FrmrArtyOffcr Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:10:12 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-673914 In the parlance of the time of the writing of the Constitution, "well regulated" meant armed with weapons suitable for military use, aka WELL ARMED. Likewise, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, "Militia" was regarded as every law abiding, able bodied adult male of sound mind. Hence, at the time of its writing, the phrase "A well regulated militia" would've meant a well armed body consisting of every law abiding able bodied adult male of sound mind. An example of this would be the SWISS model. Another model to look at for the basis of this interpretation would be the old English law requiring that all males above the age of nine practice with a longbow of suitable size for two hours every Sunday following church. This practice was to require that men over the age of (if I remember correctly) twenty shoot at targets no less than 200 paces. (For those who don't shoot archery, that is one hell of a long shot with a bow. This gives new meaning to the scene in "Robin Hood" where Errol Flynn asks if the target can be moved to a fit distance for men to shoot at.) This law was in effect during the reign of Henry the VIIIth and was instituted as a means to insure that every male could be called upon to provide service in a time of war with only minimal equipment provided by the government. i.e. They had to provide their own weapons. With the historical precedence of not only the English Longbow, but also the Continental Army of soldiers providing their own weapons (a precedent that isn't entirely unheard of to this very day), it would be hard to imagine that the framers of the Constitution would ever consider anything other than the Second Amendment being an individual right. In the parlance of the time of the writing of the Constitution, “well regulated” meant armed with weapons suitable for military use, aka WELL ARMED. Likewise, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, “Militia” was regarded as every law abiding, able bodied adult male of sound mind. Hence, at the time of its writing, the phrase “A well regulated militia” would’ve meant a well armed body consisting of every law abiding able bodied adult male of sound mind. An example of this would be the SWISS model. Another model to look at for the basis of this interpretation would be the old English law requiring that all males above the age of nine practice with a longbow of suitable size for two hours every Sunday following church. This practice was to require that men over the age of (if I remember correctly) twenty shoot at targets no less than 200 paces. (For those who don’t shoot archery, that is one hell of a long shot with a bow. This gives new meaning to the scene in “Robin Hood” where Errol Flynn asks if the target can be moved to a fit distance for men to shoot at.) This law was in effect during the reign of Henry the VIIIth and was instituted as a means to insure that every male could be called upon to provide service in a time of war with only minimal equipment provided by the government. i.e. They had to provide their own weapons.

With the historical precedence of not only the English Longbow, but also the Continental Army of soldiers providing their own weapons (a precedent that isn’t entirely unheard of to this very day), it would be hard to imagine that the framers of the Constitution would ever consider anything other than the Second Amendment being an individual right.

]]> By: snowy egret http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/comment-page-1/#comment-673812 snowy egret Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:32:22 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/2007/11/20/scotus-to-decide-on-what-%e2%80%9cwell-regulated-militia%e2%80%9d-means/#comment-673812 If the privlaged articrats from WASHINGTON D.C.(DISTRICT of CRINMALS)cant understand what the 2nd amendment means and why the founding father realy ment when they wrote it in then its time they moved somewhere else far away:-$ If the privlaged articrats from WASHINGTON D.C.(DISTRICT of CRINMALS)cant understand what the 2nd amendment means and why the founding father realy ment when they wrote it in then its time they moved somewhere else far away:-$

]]>