Veterans Disarnament Act to bar Vets from owning guns

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

Is the second ammendment protecting the rights of those people? No.

Again, the second ammendment:

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.

...right of the people... shall not be infringed.

I know it takes just a little bit of critical thinking to come to terms with Perhaps you can manage.

You keep banging your head against that wall, it must hurt.

Because you continue to post a lie when evidence to the contrary has been explained to you I will post the info for you, so you dont have to deven walk away from your wall. I wouldnt want to keep you from that, we both seem to enjoy it.

I post the following on ATS once before:

In THE ONLY 2ND AMENDMENT CASE THE COURT HAS HEARD, US v. Miller, the S.C. decided that Miller, who had transported a “sawed off” shotgun across state lines in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act, would have to have to defend himself in a lower federal court because his weapon had no military usefulness. Had his lawyer known that “sawed off” shotguns (wiki on trench guns) were used in WWI, it is probable that Miller would not have been remanded back to the lower court.

The court also stated that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right and responsibility of all men of military age.

Wiki on Miller Case

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Originally posted by apc
Probably because they're the ones to really worry about.

Considering there is a growing frustration with the way this country is headed, people will military experience will be the first to take up arms in mutiny.

Hard to say who will take up arms first, but they do have the training, they know the tactics used as they used them themselves, should things go south, Those with military experience, or any knowledge will be valuable to the resistance.

This is clearly an attempt to cut of the head of future opposition.

Shouldn't this decision be up to the states though? It should always be the decision of the State to decide who can and can't have guns, as long as the restrictions aren't unconstitutional.

Very true, See because We the People have let them go far to long without a leash, Congress has far surpassed their actual Constitutional powers.

Most citizens don't know this and don't care because they haven't taken the time to read the Constitution... and the actual powers Congress has....

Most of the things Congress is Constitutionally responsible of taking care of was taken care of long ago, their primary job is to make sure Mans Rights are protected, and they obviously aren't doing that seeing as they continue to deprive us through legislation of our rights when they have no power to do so..
Contrary to what most people believe this isn't a democracy, they cant just vote our rights away because thats what the majority wants, its a Republic, in which the individual is the most important aspect of society and Governments job is to protect the rights of the individual, not enforce the will of the majority....

Yes our country does have democratic aspects, but Democracy has no authority over the individual rights of man, The founders made this very clear..

you are completely correct, any powers not clearly given to Congress, is to be left to the several states, but even so the states cannot violate the individual rights of man.

reply to post by benign.psychosis


Yes, because the opinion of Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard University Law School means more than that of the hights court of the land.

Err in case you haven't followed supreme court rulings in the last decade psychosis... The People does refer to US as in every living breathing american. In addition, Even at the time that Clinton and the Million Moron March were going on and that argument was floated it was flatly denied as a twisting of the wording in the constitution beyond the breaking point of any rationallity.

Bottom line is you can keep playing semantic games all you want but REAL AMERICANS will dog every place you attempt to spread your misinformation and put paid to your orwellian fantasy interpretation of the constitution

Hmmm Ivory Tower Quackademia weighs in with a if you don't have a degree shut up while the adults are talking quote....

All that quote really told me is some people cannot bear to think that "the unwashed masses" are really allowed to decide their own fate.

Originally posted by roguetechie
Err in case you haven't followed supreme court rulings in the last decade psychosis... The People does refer to US as in every living breathing american.

Please help me out, I am quoting a case from the first half of last century because to my knowledge it is the only 2nd case the SC has ever heard and that the SC now refers 2nd amendment cases back to Miller.

In what case in the last decade did the the SC rule on the second amendment?

Originally posted by cavscout

I've rocks in my head.

Ok.

Ok. I understand now. You have rocks in your head.

...reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

There you go, he doesn't have the right to bear arms for himself. He wants a sawed off, but can't have one.

the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

Not for self-defense, but for MILITIA purposes. For STATE purposes.

THE RIGHT OF THE STATE

i.e:

The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

constitutionally protected for the use of the state militia.

We the people - the state.

not a citizen, or a person.


I'm all for owning a gun, by the way.

How can you ignore that individuals are not permitted to own guns?

[edit on 23-9-2007 by benign.psychosis]

[edit on 23-9-2007 by benign.psychosis]

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Owning a gun is not a right.

It is a priviledge.


Second Ammendent:

You are completely wrong.



"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison, The Federalist Papers.



"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188.



"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."

From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.



The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court.



"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.



"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788.


"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788.



"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788.


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789.



"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. [...] The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

Majority Supreme Court opinion in "U.S. vs. Miller" (1939),



"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.


"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.



"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188.



"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850).



"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).



"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.



"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.



"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356.



"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.



"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.



" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.




[edit on 23-9-2007 by C0le]

reply to post by C0le


That's great. I agree with it all.

The fact is that our rights ARE being infringed - more and more every year.

Why?

Because of what I have been trying to explain. A legal web of loopholes and deception mounted on top of our constitution.

reply to post by benign.psychosis



See the problem being is that, The People have allowed this to happen by not learning history, The Constitution is a very simple and clear Document, its a matter of understanding the language and terms of the time in some cases, but its still very clear, but if for some odd reason someone cant understand a certain aspect of it, The very men who wrote it and signed it, have stated on record multiples times, the clear meaning and purpose of everything in it, the whole argument of loopholes and interpretation are completely invalid because of such things, unless you ignor them.....

Which is what The People, have done...

thus we have ALL the problems we have today.





[edit on 23-9-2007 by C0le]

Interesting issue.

Personally, I think it's rather wise to keep weapons out of the hand of people suffering from psychological disorders. I know someone who suffers from PTSD. She (yes, she... never been to war but is an immigrant from Israel where she was too close to a couple bombings) will sometimes freak right out in fits of blind panic. I'd hate to think what she could/would do if she had firearms on hand during an episode.

However, it seem particularly strange that this legislature would apply specifically to vets. Would it not make more sense as a general case, prohibiting the sale of guns to anyone suffering from PTSD or other disorders that can cause violence, panic, and/or extremely impaired judgment?

Why the inclusion of "ever having been diagnosed"? What about those that are certified "cured"? What about those who have been wrongly diagnosed? What about the possible abuse that could arise by intentionally mis-diagnosing vocal vets?

The timing is also bothersome.
Right now, more and more US Troops are speaking out against US actions and involvement in foreign nations. The vets carry a loud voice and the understanding of how to wage wars. If the intention of the government is to impose an unconstitutional tyranny upon the people, disarming the vets would be an important part of suppressing possible revolution.

As I say... interesting topic.

reply to post by C0le


And they do ignore them. They ignore them so much that we are unwittingly moved from common law protection into admirality law.

Principles of Constitutional Interpretation


[edit on 23-9-2007 by benign.psychosis]

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Owning a gun is not a right.

It is a priviledge.

You are a citizen - not included in the constitution.

You are not "the people"

legal definition of "people" is "the state"
...

Fascism?

if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies, think duck, not zoologist with gadgets....

seriously, i'd like to know what a constitution is for if cititzens are somehow excluded? do you believe that life is a priviliedge, too? just curious.

While I have many problems with this bill the biggest problem with that there is not REAL definition of PTSD. Who's to say they don't move this bill to include civilians with PSTD and then say everyone who has something really bad happen has PSTD,regardless of if it was really tramatic to you or not just because they feel like you might be a danger.


Or a better question... What happens if a female soldier is raped and diagnosed with PSTD. She can't buy a gun to defend herself?


This bill is far to general, far to inclusive, and totally unnecessary.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Virole]

Look, we are not going to win with guns anyways.

We hit them where it hurts.

In the pocketbook.

Stock up on a couple of months worth of canned and dry foods, and bottled water. Buy a generator, and hire an electrician to help you hook it up to your house. Stock up on blankets, sleeping bags, candles, buy CB's etc, then

Take all of your money out of the bank. Demand cash. Then, a nationwide strike. No one works for a month. At the end of the month, we demand the current government step down, and we install a government elected by popular vote.

No more secrets, no more Federal Reserve, and it's corrupt banking system. No more ridiculous waste. No more endless war created out of thin air
No more favortism, bribery and general uselessness in congress.
No more chemtrails, chemical/biologic weapon systems.
No more Blackwater.

People, President Bush has a 29% approval rating, and he is rewriting the book as we speak. I personally believe he doesn't have any plans of ever leaving office.

We have to stop this. The bible warned us about this. Time is now. Revelation is happening now.

1 PTSD IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER. IT IS A NEUROCHEMICAL DISORDER LIKE PARKINSON'S DISEASE, FIBROMYALGIA, RESTLESS LEG SYNDROME. ect
I is caused by prolonged exposure to fight or flight stress.
2 if they take away guns from vets they will also have to take guns away from.
police officers with PTSD
firefighters with PTSD
EMT AND PARAMEDICS with PTSD
9/11 survivors with PTSD
RAPE Victim WITH PTSD
ECT
ECT
ECT

3 ANY gun grab of vets with PTSD with out TAKING guns from these other groups with PTSD would BE thrown out by the courts as discrimination against vets
4 it also would be a violation of the Americans with disabilities act.

5 i would not want to be the cop or the police department that started to collect these guns.
as they would find 1000s of VERY MAD VETS with outside there police headquarters.
ANY ONE THAT VOTES FOR THIS ALSO WOULD FIND THAT THEY WOULD BE OUT OF OFFICE REAL QUICK.
AS VETS ARE A LARGE VOTING BLOCK AND THE NRA WOULD BE THERE TO HELP

I AM A VIETNAM VET
A FIREFIGHTE/EMT
AND A PTSD COUNSELOR
AND A NRA MEMBER
and no i do not have PTSD.

I BELIEVE THIS TO BE ANOTHER CHEAP TRICK BY THE VA AND THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP VETS FROM FILING DISABLEITY FOR PTSD.
ALSO THIS WILL STOP MANY VETS FROM GETTING HELP FOR PTSD.
AND UNTREATED THAT IS WHERE THE DANGER COMES IN.
IT IS NOT FROM GUNS ITS FROM ALCOHOL DRUGS and SUICIDES IN THE UNTREATED.

Wait, some people think its a bad thing to take guns away from mentally ill people?

No wonder the term "gun nut" is used so often.

I see where this is going, Guy Loves Bush and Loves America. He goes to Iraq, his experiance makes him look deep into the state of the nation, it worries him, troubles him. He fears for his Nation and his childrens future. This anxiety is recognized. Must be PTSD no gun for you. If you are not happy with our free, secure, great capitalist republic you must have a mental disorder, no gun for you. Oh and let me put this chip in you and tap your phone too, we don't want you hurting yourself.

I do not believe in violence, yet I want people to be able to own guns if they want. Especially the most trained citizens in America.

This is the same thing doctors are doing. (Not from personal experiance ) You are axious over the world, you can't do anything about it, they say you shouldn't worry, here take some Prozac, one more free thinking American silenced.

Mr Clark your child has a vivid imagination and brings up ideas that do not follow the flow of the ciriculum, he seems to be a free thinker, give him this Ritlen.

Originally posted by Flyer
Wait, some people think its a bad thing to take guns away from mentally ill people?

No wonder the term "gun nut" is used so often.

Who decides who is mentally ill? Personally I think a person in Blackwater may be mentally ill if he is willing to go to war and kill just for money. We should take all their guns, quick some doctor out their make a blanket diagnosis of all Blackwater people.

Furthermore, should George Bush have his finger on Nukes and ready to go to war in Iran? look at his past history and mental stability.

I can see it now, the repubs in power, they do their move money to rich, new Hillary monarch comes in, she does her take the guns and drug them up, then turn it to Jeb Bush, more wars and corruption. ect ect..

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Redge777]

Looks to me like the US Government are realising that more and more troops are coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan with a very jaded and angry view of the people who sent them there, to get shot at for no reason other than the personal wants of the people in charge.

And groups of battle hardened, highly trained and anti-government soldiers could cause some trouble if they are allowed to arm themselves, don't you think?