[TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT

[Andrew Vida]

Peter Hirst wrote:
> Andrew:
> 
> With all due respect, I think you need to distinguish between what ought to 
> be and what is.

	I do.  I have conceded that your scenario is possible - perhaps even 
probable.  I just hope it will not turn out so.

 >  The fact that there are still able marks men of qualifying
> age -- militia in the organic sense

	This habit of referring to "organic" seems off.  Militia is codified in 
law.  It is FACT.  If we will not abide by these artifacts, then why 
have them at all?  If some element of government feels it is above the 
law, they need to be removed - by force if necessary.  Otherwise, what 
we have here is a joke - and a sad one at that.  I recognize the 
normative nature of this, but that doesn't make it less true or valid. 
We, the people, need to make a friggin' choice here and cut the fence 
sitting act.  If we want to be a free nation, then we'd better get to it 
- otherwise, we should just drop our drawers, bend over, and get it over 
with.  Since the end of WWII an ever growing proportion of this nation 
has joined the bandwagon of masturbating sophistry and look where it has 
landed us.

  --  does not mean that there is a well regulated militia.

	It in fact does.  It is in the USC.  It is FACT.  That a government 
office, in this case the courts, would violate the laws it is sworn to 
uphold is another question entirely.  Very relevant, I agree, but 
different in any event.

>  There is in fact not one single duly constituted Militia 

	Define "duly constituted".

> And do not mistake what Scalia has done in Heller.  It does not leave the 
> door open for the pervert case  with false reasoning:  it IS that case. 

	Can you elaborate?  I am still trying to find your reasoning.  Either 
it is false or you are too subtle for my peanut-sized brain.

> Your reading of Heller suggests that the Scaliwag Militia would have the 
> right to f-15s with full load of 20mm cannon, Sidewinders, Sparrows and 
> AMRAAMS.

	That is correct -if they can find the funding and as long as they 
operate in concirdance with the constitution (i.e. no bank robbery and 
that sort of thing).

 >  My reading is that the next case --Supreme Court case -- on the
> subject will draw the line somewhere around the distinction between the 
> AR-15 and M-16, and will be firmly rooted in Heller and Miller, and that the 
> well regulated milita will be found to have been subsumed by the natonal 
> Guard in 1903. 

	You may be correct on this, but make NO mistake about it that this 
would require a very severe perversion of reason and precedent.  It may 
happen, it may not - time will tell perhaps.  But there is NO legitimate 
basis in reason or law that will support such a ruling.  It will have to 
stand on its own as a clear violation of their oaths to uphold the 
constitution of the USA.

 > I am not saying that's the way it ought to be.  I am saying
> that's where these four so-called conservatives (and Kennedy) -- not some 
> lizard on the 9th circuit the SCOTUS -- are headed.

	I would expect this from a 9th circuit judge, given what numb-nuts they 
seem to be - then it would most likely be overturned, as it usually is. 
  The Supremes?  Less likely IMO, but if the stakes are high enough, 
well... men are still only men, even if they wear black robes.

	Let us all hope that you turn out to be mistaken on this, because if 
you are not, the implications are not good for our posterity.