Posted on 04/30/2002 12:11:21 AM PDT by Mini-14
Well, it matters to me, 'cause I pass 55 next year. And you KNOW that the gun-grabbers will use ANY excuse to limit gun ownership. I can just see it now---HCI--"No one over 55 should be allowed to own firearms. Everyone KNOWS that eyesight and reflexes deteriorate with age. Why that old f*rt might shoot at someone and accidentally hit someone else."
As to the clauses of the Second Amendment--a better way to state it is that EVERY CITIZEN has the RKBA (second clause) SO THAT the government may have ready access to a body of individuals with firearms training and experience to defend the security of the nation (first clause).
Ok. That leaves open the right to use them to protect ourselves. We can keep and bear them only at the instance of the government and in it's service, but we can't use them to defend ourselves against a personal assault. Like a car: we can have one but can't use it unless the state licenses us. It's dangerous to rely on a military base for the right.
Both clauses mean that the citizens will keep and bear arms when they feel like it and for their own purposes. One clause says that and the other leads to that inescapable conclusion. Therfore they mean the same thing.
Unfortunately, I believe you are right. This is one of those devolutions--like gays in the military--that irreversibly ratches toward liberalism and nanny state decadence. The sheep are too easily frightened into giving up fundamental rights in the name of security, and too easily shamed into embracing immorality in the name of political correctness.
As a practical matter, Bush is powerless to reverse these things.
Good one!
In an unstable market, protect your assets. Capital diversification - including 1911, M14, and 870 - will prove to be a wise investment strategy.
He swore, I believe, to uphold the Constitution. Any law which restricts the right of the People to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Thus, Ashcroft is *not* doing his job as US A-G.
Did you also give Bush a pass when he signed the blatantly unconstitutional campaign reform bill, you know, the one that curtails free speech near elections?
Tuor
In my opinion, there are two major types of laws: constitutional laws and unconstitutional laws.
It is possible, and in fact frequent, for a law to be 'bad' -- ill-advised, overly optimistic, poorly worded, etc -- and yet not violate the limitations set forth in the Constitution. In this case, I would agree that the A-G is bound to uphold such laws to the best of his ability, even if he knows they are badly written.
If, on the other hand, a law is made which is clearly unconstitutional, then, as he has taken an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, he should *not* support such a law. For this to occur, IMO, the law would have to be very clearly unconstitutional -- such as a law restricting something that is specifically stated may not be restricted (free speech, arms).
There are many bad laws out there that I think should be repealed, but I would expect the A-G to uphold them. But I expect that *no* public servant who has sworn to uphold the Constitution to enforce, allow, or tolerate any law or act which violates the Constitution. That, IMO, is the whole point and purpose for having them *swear* an oath in the first place.
Tuor
Screw it. I give up. I guess I will just have to be a felon. And they will need to shoot me to get the hardware.
Then look for a successful Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2004.
Strategery, Laz.
They have all been converted to "Homeland Security" Rifles.
Best regards,
Constitutionality is for the judicial branch to decide, not the executive. If your view held, police would flat-out stop arresting people for drug possession. There would pretty much be chaos and most laws would fall due to selective enforcement.
If Ashcroft wants to determine constitutionality, let him get a judgeship; otherwise, he's doing his job enforcing the laws that the legislative passed and the executive signed.
I think that everyone has the responsibility to consider the constitutionality of laws. Some laws are just *blatantly* unconsitutional.
I seem to recall that certain 'bad' laws are...not enforced. They're on the books, but no one ever bothers to enforce it.
It seems to me that if you swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and you were tasked with enforcing a law that violated the constitution, then either your oath would require you to rectify the situation or you should remove yourself from office. The one thing your oath would not allow you to do would be to enforce an unconstitutional law.
You don't need judges to tell you a law that restricts guns is contrary to the amendment that says no such laws may be made. I can't see how anything can be more stark than that.
"I was just following orders" is not an excuse to violate one's oath or the Constitution.
Tuor
STILL wrong. The first clause gives the reason GOVERNMENT wants the citizens to have the RKBA, it in no way LIMITS the second clause. The other potential lawful uses of fireams are NOT affected. If you look at the STATE Bills of Rights from the same period as the Constitution was established, one of them (I "think" Pennsylvania) puts it "shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and his own State, and the taking of game". The ORIGINAL interpretation of ALL the amendments was broad, not restrictive. In fact, the Federalists argued that the Bill of Rights wasn't even necessary, as government was limited ONLY to those things specified in the un-amended Constitution. As usual, the Federalists were wrong and the Anti-Federalists were right (the B of R was passed to satisfy the Anti-Federalists reservations).
The "Militia Act" which establishes that age range was passed in 1799, contemporaneous (more or less) with the Constitution. See my response to William Terrell in reply 116 for the reason the age limit does NOT apply.
Bush has already alienated his base. Read between the lines of all the articles coming out the last few weeks trying to convince conservatives that W really is one of them, and not a liberal in Reagan's clothing. Isn't working...Bush already proved he will happily sign unconstitutional legislation that violates the First Amendment; he could care less about the Second.
Any of the Bushbots out there care to cite what blatantly unconstitutional legislation Clinton signed into law? I can't remember any. (The feds taking over the running of everything as a matter of course doesn't count).
The additional argument can be used against those who say that the first clause only covers militias organized and "regulated" by the state, not individuals, in spite of all the state supreme court rulings that that amendment covers individual use of firearms for protection. I've used it effectively recently, and it does tend to shut the oposition down, when thay get on the military base for the amendment which they will use like a mantra. This argument gets past that quite efficiently. You can use it yourself or not.
You're preaching to the choir.
To quote a-human-right.com:
"The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting deer, it is about stopping thugs from hunting your family."
Yes we see the ghosts-of-hitler-in-the-camouflage..FECAL MATTER = assault rifles with combat hardware were not needed by hunters and sportsmen ...
Sounds harmless until one considers this FACT as noted on a-human-right.com:
In general, rifles which are similar to military designs are best choices for all-around use. Those tend to be robust, reliable, relatively accurate and use commonly available ammunition and magazines. Surplus ammunition is often available for a fraction of the cost of commercially produced cartridges. Similarly, a 30-round magazine of a common design may cost less than a 4-round magazine of a less common type. .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.