At a time when the goverment are seemingly doing all they can to take control away from US citizens, i fear there will be some kind of intervention from the powers that be to stop this appeal being successfull.

Either way it will be a big day for gunowners over there.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject, but what do they deem ok as an "organised malitia"? Are there actually groups of gunowners out there that the goverment are happy about?

I just found this on the web, please correct me if this is not factual.

Or if you would rather, take a look at the actual legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code:

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Going by this, am i right in saying that unless you are National Guard, Naval Militia and the likes, you are not classed as an organised militia.....therefore this ruling will be unlikely to pass today?

Then again, could'nt they use this definition of militia to start stripping the guns from many of you?

Like i said, i know very little about this so please correct me on any of the mistakes in my post.

CX.

[edit on 18/3/08 by CX]

Interesting to see the future of America being shaped today. From what Ive read here, it seems to me that the consitution addresses the peoples right to bear arms, and not just the militia. With that in mind, I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the defendant.


(and that came from a "liberal"!)

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

(and that came from a "liberal"!)

Shouldn't it have though? I still don't get when "liberal" changed to mean restriction and control.

Liberal is supposed to be free, liberty. Imagine my surprise the first time I had a "liberal" try to take something away from me.

If the Court by some ludicrous ruling states that a individual does NOT have the right to have a firearm, the crap will hit the fan! I just cannot imagine that people will sit around and let this happen.

Another point to remember is that the Supreme Court is not the last word and not gods like some like to portray them. Their rulings can be changed by Congress changing the wording of the law.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I still don't get when "liberal" changed to mean restriction and control.

Liberal is supposed to be free, liberty. Imagine my surprise the first time I had a "liberal" try to take something away from me.

It has always been this way. Way back when slavery was legal, it was the republican party which put an end to slavery. The liberal dems fought tooth & nail to prevent this. Anyway, my point is that liberals were always for restriction and control for the greater good.

When have liberals been for liberty and freedom?

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
[
When have liberals been for liberty and freedom?

I suppose I figured the label for an ideology would be descriptive rather than prescriptive. I was about 12 when I figured it out. Just a child fooled by word-play. As a kid I associated "conservative" with parents/teachers always telling me what to do and "liberal" with essentially being left alone.

Experience changed the simple view of this kid some 20 years ago.

I just wonder if current "liberals" just haven't noticed the trend or if they really do want control and restriction driven by some sort of self-righteous "holier than thou" "we know best" motivation which would just make them a bunch of jerks that need to be smacked. Not unlike the religious right.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm watching the preview discussion that was taped last week, and it's interesting that some of the lawyers who are in favor of the ban are using pretty much that same argument that you speak of: that the gov't has the right to ban firearms for the good of the public safety.

They can't make the connection between all of their dislike for Patriot Act type measures limiting liberty for the sake of personal safety and their own crusade to limit liberty for the sake of personal safety? That's mind boggling.

I also wonder how a thinking being can still believe that any legislation attacking firearms creates an environment of safety. If it did then that guy in D.C. wouldn't be seeking a pistol in the first place because D.C. would be the safest area in the country.

Doesn't anybody think anymore?

Another con argument is based upon the theory that, if the purpose of the "well-armed militia" is to be the final line of defense for the people against gov't tyranny, then the people must be allowed to match the gov't in firepower. IOW, they must be allowed to possess every weapon, including nukes.

Many such arguments will be proposed; I wonder how many will be presented in the relatively short 90 minutes scheduled.