Obama taking away gun nut rights

[_moksha]

I wanted to beat Droopy to the shot on this one or at least have our fingers poised jointly on the trigger of alarm.

Obama's new gun control proposal will limit our ability to have more than a ten round clip in our God given weapons. He will also further limit our ability to obtain surface to air missiles at the gun shows.

[_bcspace]

All will likely be struck down by Supreme Court because of the McDonald and Heller rulings and related dictum if they happen to pass which seems very unlikely.

In addition, his executive orders appear to violate Article II of the Constitution. The idea is that executive orders must be for "faithfully executing the law". Obama must show which existing laws his executive orders are supposed to aid. The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer in 1952 is a good case for showing an executive order was for making law, not aiding law, and therefore invalid.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The former JSOC Commander, General McChrystal said he didn't think people should own automatic weapons in the US. He didn't see the point.

General McChrystal > Droopy McGunNut

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/retired-gen- ... n-control/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal



V/R
Dr. Cam

[_bcspace]

The former JSOC Commander, General McChrystal said he didn't think people should own automatic weapons in the US.

While I disagree, especially since the courts have upheld the notion that the 2nd Amendment is partly for citizens to protect themselves against government and the term "militia" in modern dictum connotes the average citizen having available in their homes the standard personal arms as used by the military, the reality is that no one is talking about automatic weapons currently as those require FBI permission.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why do you think it's a good idea for automatic weapons to be legal in the US?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_krose]

... the courts have upheld the notion that the 2nd Amendment is partly for citizens to protect themselves against government...

Please point to these rulings.

I do recall the ruling that individuals have the right to self defense, but not an individual's right to fight the government.

[_3sheets2thewind]

... the courts have upheld the notion that the 2nd Amendment is partly for citizens to protect themselves against government...

Please point to these rulings.

I do recall the ruling that individuals have the right to self defense, but not an individual's right to fight the government.

For England and the US, the history of private ownership of arms is premised on the people protecting themselves from enemies foreign and domestic to include governments.

It is quite a read, but read the McDonald and Heller cases, I believe Heller goes more into the history of private ownership of firearms.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Heller, just a sampling:

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31-53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103-106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." 1 W. & M., c. 2, § 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the "right to bear arms" is a "limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament" as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to "libertarian political principles," not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

and

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760's and 1770's, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that "[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence." A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed.1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed.1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone's Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the "right of self-preservation" as permitting a citizen to "repe[l] force by force" when "the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury." 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker's Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31-32 (1833).

[_krose]

... the courts have upheld the notion that the 2nd Amendment is partly for citizens to protect themselves against government...

Please point to these rulings.

I do recall the ruling that individuals have the right to self defense, but not an individual's right to fight the government.

For England and the US, the history of private ownership of arms is premised on the people protecting themselves from enemies foreign and domestic to include governments.

The promise to defend against "enemies foreign and domestic" is part the oath of office for government elected officials, military, etc. So who would be a 'domestic enemy' that government officials would have to defend against, if not a group of armed citizens bent on fighting against the government?

How do you square this fact with the notion of regular citizens being armed so they can fight the government, its police force, and its military, all of whom swore this oath?