Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep
dansargis.org ^ | October 17, 2007 | Dan Sargis

Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn

 

  

Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep

October 18, 2007 

After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard child of the litter.

And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill. 

If any of our Constitutional Rights were trampled to the same extent that the exercise of Second Amendment Rights are daily disparaged and denied...the American Civil Liberties Union would suffer a collective panty-twist. 

In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace. 

Goldberg entered a Chili’s restaurant to pick up a takeout order on June 21.  When he reached for his wallet to pay for the order a waitress spotted his legally owned and carried gun under his shirt and called the Glastonbury police. 

What happened next should frighten all Americans. 

As reported by the Hartford Courant, “Officers arrived and pushed Goldberg against the wall, while customers and wait staff watched. Goldberg, the soft-spoken son of a 30-year police veteran, said he calmly told the officers he had a permit to carry. They checked it out and found that he did. But because the waitress was alarmed he was arrested for breach of peace.” 

In true Gestapo style, Glastonbury Police Chief Thomas Sweeney had “...no problems with the officers' actions with regard to the incident,”  

And by the “always presumed guilty” treatment afforded legal gun owners, the state revoked Goldberg’s permit before his case even went to trial. 

Even though Goldberg’s arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its reinstitution. 

The Board has given him a hearing date of May 14, 2009

Thankfully this Board is being sued by one of its own members,  M. Peter Kuck, secretary of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, for denying citizens their due process rights with regard to the denial of their Amendment II Rights. 

And another “alarmed” individual, Susan Mazzoccoli, executive director of the board, has responded to Kuck’s lawsuit in true totalitarian fashion...”We have tried to involve the governor's office to have him removed....” 

One can only imagine the national outcry if a poll worker became “alarmed” at the sight of a black man trying to cast his ballot and the police arrested that black man because he “alarmed” the female poll worker and then the state revoked his Fifteenth Amendment Right. 

Or better yet, in response to Malik Zulu Shabazz (head of the New Black Panthers)  ranting “death to Israel...the white man is the devil...Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets” in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington, D.C...how about suspending the First Amendment rights of Black Muslims?  I bet he “alarmed” a few people that day. 

But pooping on your Second Amendment Right is no big deal. 

For the sake of those needing a refresher course, Amendment II of the Constitution states that, “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.” 

Not only does contemporary discussion of the Amendment go ludicrously out of its way to question the meaning of every word in Amendment II (including the placement of commas  in the text), but it also questions the legitimacy of the Amendment.   

In every instance, the liberals toil in angst while trying to nullify the intent and simplicity of Amendment II.   

Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar believes that, “The amendment speaks of a right of ‘the people’ collectively rather than a right of ‘persons’ individually.”  (as if there is a difference between some abstract group of “people” and individual citizens) 

Yet, there seems to be no problem with the word “people” when it comes to the sacred First Amendment.  How can this be?  How can “people” in Amendment I instantly become individual persons but “people” in Amendment II are argued not to be individuals? 

By making Amendment XIV a “living right”, Professor Amar justifies this dichotomy by arguing, “...given that a broad reading is a policy choice rather than a clear constitutional command, it must be functionally justified. And the mere fact that, say, the First Amendment has been read expansively is not an automatic argument for equal treatment for the Second.”   

Amar further argues that, “...other amendments have been read generously; why not the Second?   The obvious functional idea that sticks and stones and guns...can indeed hurt others in ways that ...words cannot.” 

And to this argument, one might ask the simple question, “How many “persons” did Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels actually kill with a gun versus how many “people” did they kill with words?” 

Or ask about the 1932, German election that yielded a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag and made Hitler Chancellor of Germany.  (You have to love that right to vote) 

Yet, liberals fight daily to restore the voting rights of convicted felons while simultaneously trying to nullify the Second Amendment Rights of the innocent. 

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to Black Sheep. 



TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: armedcitizen; banglist; beserkcop; donutwatch; leo; rkba; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-357 next last
Can you imagine being denied your Constitutional Rights because you were charged with a crime that you were quickly found innocent of?
1 posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:51 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn

This people are monsters and can’t be trusted with upholding our laws!


2 posted on 10/17/2007 11:53:03 AM PDT by thebaron512
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn

And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill.
***It’s not just liberals. Free Republic has its contingent of absolutists who favor property rights over the bill of rights.


3 posted on 10/17/2007 11:53:54 AM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq— via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; Joe Brower

Bang


4 posted on 10/17/2007 11:54:57 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*RWVA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
Well, this is what happens when one submits to requesting permission to exercise a constitutional right.

Obtaining a "permit" is a request to exercise the Second Amendment.

5 posted on 10/17/2007 11:55:15 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thebaron512

It gets much worse. The State Police are the ones being sued for interpreting (creating?) the CT gun laws according to their taste.


6 posted on 10/17/2007 12:08:32 PM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
"Can you imagine being denied your Constitutional Rights because you were charged with a crime"

We throw citizens in jail who are charged with a crime before their case even goes to trial. Where's the outrage?

Temporarily confiscating one's property seems to pale in comparison.

7 posted on 10/17/2007 12:09:44 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill.

They may treat the 2nd amendment as a bastard, but they ignore the 9th and 10th entirely.
8 posted on 10/17/2007 12:13:14 PM PDT by wolfpat (If you don't like the Patriot Act, you're really gonna hate Sharia Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We throw citizens in jail who are charged with a crime before their case even goes to trial. Where's the outrage?

Temporarily confiscating one's property seems to pale in comparison.

But we do not deny them their voting rights or muzzle them or not allow them to write letters to the editor or not give them culturally appropriate meals, etc, etc, etc....

9 posted on 10/17/2007 12:13:54 PM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn

10 posted on 10/17/2007 12:18:06 PM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
"But we do not deny them their voting rights or muzzle them ..."

Nope. We just take away their freedom, that's all, and throw them in jail. Without a trial. I'll bet you even agree with that.

Yet here we have a story where the use of one's property is suspended and you go ballistic.

11 posted on 10/17/2007 12:25:59 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn

I don’t think it was ever in the Founders’ minds to ever deny a person’s right to self-protection. I think it was just absolutely a given considering the threats and needs pioneers and revolutionaries faced daily. It was probably foreign to a man of the sixteenth century that you would ever try to take away his means of self-protection.


12 posted on 10/17/2007 12:29:30 PM PDT by TheThinker (Foreign campaign contributions should be criminal. This is not democracy at work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We throw citizens in jail who are charged with a crime before their case even goes to trial.

But we don't keep them in jail for years after the charges are dropped.

13 posted on 10/17/2007 12:30:38 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
By making Amendment XIV a “living right”, Professor Amar justifies this dichotomy by arguing, “...given that a broad reading is a policy choice rather than a clear constitutional command, it must be functionally justified. And the mere fact that, say, the First Amendment has been read expansively is not an automatic argument for equal treatment for the Second.”

If anything, the second amendment is broader than the first. The first starts out "Congress shall make no law...". The second has no such limitation on who is prohibited from restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus while you could argue that the first had to be expanded by the Supreme Court to apply to the other two branches of government or to the states, the second is a blanket prohibition of restriction by all levels and parts of the government from its ratification.

14 posted on 10/17/2007 12:36:18 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (May the heirs of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski rise up again to defend Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We throw citizens in jail who are charged with a crime before their case even goes to trial.

But we do not deny them their VI and VIII Amendment Rights...which is essentially what was done to the INNOCENT man in this story all because a Chili's waitress was "alarmed".

15 posted on 10/17/2007 12:39:40 PM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
"But we don't keep them in jail for years after the charges are dropped."

Correct. Connecticut needs to get their act together.

16 posted on 10/17/2007 12:45:23 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
"I don’t think it was ever in the Founders’ minds to ever deny a person’s right to self-protection."

A person’s right to self-protection with a gun? That right was only protected for a certain class of citizens -- primarily white, male landowners.

Non-whites didn't have that right protected. Nor women, children, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, Indians, prisoners, the insane ... quite a few persons did not have that right protected.

Now, that's not to say they couldn't have guns. Just that their right to have them wasn't protected.

17 posted on 10/17/2007 12:56:36 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
"I don’t think it was ever in the Founders’ minds to ever deny a person’s right to self-protection."

A person’s right to self-protection with a gun? That right was only protected for a certain class of citizens -- primarily white, male landowners.

Non-whites didn't have that right protected. Nor women, children, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, Indians, prisoners, the insane ... quite a few persons did not have that right protected.

Now, that's not to say they couldn't have guns. Just that their right to have them wasn't protected.

18 posted on 10/17/2007 12:56:49 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
"the second is a blanket prohibition of restriction by all levels and parts of the government from its ratification."

Then why do the gun laws vary from state to state? For example, why is concealed carry allowed in some states but not others if the second amendment applies to every state?

When it comes to the first amendment, the laws in all the states are uniform.

19 posted on 10/17/2007 1:02:00 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
"But we do not deny them their VI and VIII Amendment Rights...which is essentially what was done to the INNOCENT man in this story"

His 6th and 8th amendment rights were not denied! Get a grip.

The State of Connecticut, the governmental body which issued the license, should speed up the process. But they're not violating the U.S. Constitution by dragging their feet.

20 posted on 10/17/2007 1:09:19 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
That right was only protected for a certain class of citizens

That right was Constitutionally protected for "the people", a term which was not more narrowly defined in the Constitution. That actual active protection varied among discernable groups was a matter of imperfect implementation of protection by fallible biased humans - just as voting, citizenship, etc. all started as primarily improperly limited to white male landowners, and those not included subsequently had to fight (legally and physically) for inclusion.

It's the 21st Century, RP - arguing to limit the protection of enumerated rights to a subclass of people in general (and let's stick to your "white, male landowners" allegation, not some red herring) is legally, politically, and socially very passe.

21 posted on 10/17/2007 1:11:30 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
A person’s right to self-protection with a gun? That right was only protected for a certain class of citizens -- primarily white, male landowners.

Not exactly correct.

Even Professor Amar was clear on this:

As scholars such as Stephen Halbrook, Michael Kent Curtis, Robert Cottrol, and Ray Diamond have documented in great detail, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment strongly believed in an individual right to own and keep guns in one's home for self-protection. Most obviously, blacks and Unionists down South could not always count on the local police to keep white night-riders at bay. When guns were outlawed, only Klansmen would have guns. Thus, the Reconstruction Congress made quite clear that a right to keep a gun at home for self-protection was indeed a constitutional right--a true "privilege" or "immunity" of citizens.

22 posted on 10/17/2007 1:13:48 PM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
When it comes to the first amendment, the laws in all the states are uniform.

Now why is that? Especially if the 1st Amendment was originally implicitly intended to protect the rights of white male landowners, and states could restrict that right as they saw fit?

23 posted on 10/17/2007 1:14:38 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The State of Connecticut, the governmental body which issued the license, should speed up the process. But they're not violating the U.S. Constitution by dragging their feet.

At this point that is for the court to decide because that is the basis of the litigation.

24 posted on 10/17/2007 1:17:11 PM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn; Joe Brower

I can easily imagine it, back where I lived in the P.R of Kalifornistan.

Now I live in free north Florida, and I can’t imagine it.


25 posted on 10/17/2007 1:52:42 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But they're not violating the U.S. Constitution by dragging their feet.

Robert Paulsens abysmal Constitutional ignorance is on display yet again. I swear I've never seen anyone so proud of their bone deep stupidity in all my life...

"Justice delayed is justice denied" William Gladstone.

Paulsen calling you an ignorant fool is an insult to ignorant fools the world over.

L

26 posted on 10/17/2007 2:49:12 PM PDT by Lurker ( Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing smallpox to ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2; TheThinker
"It's the 21st Century, RP"

You know that. I know that. But TheThinker is the one trying to apply what was in the Founder's minds in 1789.

"The people" weren't "all persons" in 1789 and they aren't "all persons" today. That's my point.

27 posted on 10/17/2007 3:16:26 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn
"Thus, the Reconstruction Congress made quite clear that a right to keep a gun at home for self-protection was indeed a constitutional right--a true "privilege" or "immunity" of citizens."

Not quite clear enough, apparently. The U.S. Supreme Court, starting with The Slaughterhouse Cases, has listed the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" and the right to keep and bear arms ain't one of them.

If an individual right to own and keep guns in one's home for self-protection is protected, it's protected by the state, not the federal government.

28 posted on 10/17/2007 3:30:48 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"and states could restrict that right as they saw fit?"

They could, and did.

"Now why is that?"

Because activist U.S. Supreme Courts have used the 14th amendment to apply the first amendment to the states in addition to the federal government.

"Especially if the 1st Amendment was originally implicitly intended to protect the rights of white male landowners"

You need to reread it. The first amendment protected the freedom of speech, press, and religion for all persons. The right of assembly and the right to petition the government were protected only for "the people" - white, male, citizen landowners.

29 posted on 10/17/2007 3:39:41 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"That right was only protected for a certain class of citizens -- primarily white, male landowners."

So, what's your point?
30 posted on 10/17/2007 3:42:20 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Robert Paulsens abysmal Constitutional ignorance is on display yet again."

So it takes the State of Connecticut two years to reinstate a carry license because of administrative shortcomings. We all agree that's too long.

But before you claim that anyone on this forum is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, maybe you'd better first tell all of us what part of the U.S. Constitution is being violated?

Oh, and please don't say "due process" -- his case was heard and disposed of in 30 days. Justice was neither denied or delayed.

31 posted on 10/17/2007 3:48:59 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
"So, what's your point?"

I was merely correcting the poster who thought the Founding Fathers intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms for all persons. They intended no such thing. They didn't even protect it for all citizens.

32 posted on 10/17/2007 3:54:25 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They intended no such thing. They didn't even protect it for all citizens.

Then why didn't they say that? Why does the 2nd read "the right of the people instead of "the right of certain citizens" or "the right of the classes of citizens named herein"?

You don't even lie well. You really shouldn't make such a hobby of it.

L

33 posted on 10/17/2007 4:10:04 PM PDT by Lurker ( Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing smallpox to ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Then why didn't they say that?"

That's my question to you. Why didn't they say "the right of all persons" or "the right of all individuals" or "the right of all citizens"?

Well, the obvious answer is, that wasn't who they meant to protect.

The second amendment protected the right of "the people". That phrase, "the people", means a certain group. And who were they? The U.S. Supreme Court defined it in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (my underline):

While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

In 1789, "the people" meant white, male, citizen landowners. Period. They were the only ones allowed to vote. They were the only ones who developed a sufficient connection with this country.

Today, of course, "the people" also include non-whites and women. But still not "all individuals" or "all persons" or even "all citizens".

That's twice you insulted me and twice I responded politely. There will not be a third.

34 posted on 10/17/2007 4:53:53 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Why didn't they say "the right of all persons" or "the right of all individuals" or "the right of all citizens"?

Because they meant "the people".

The U.S. Supreme Court defined it in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Would that be the same SCOTUS that finds a 'right to abortion' in the Constitution? The same Supreme Court which affirmed "separate but equal"? The same Supreme Court of Dred Scott fame?

While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive,..

No kidding, Skippy.

That's twice you insulted me

Your Marxist views are what's insulting.

There will not be a third.

Be still my beating heart....

L

35 posted on 10/17/2007 6:01:54 PM PDT by Lurker ( Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing smallpox to ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They intended no such thing.

If that was indeed their intent, they must have said so. Care to point to the part of the Constitution that limits who gets to enjoy the 2nd Amendment rights? Being very literate people trying to be very clear, surely they must have made it more specific than, say, a phrase as broad as "the people".

36 posted on 10/17/2007 9:00:27 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In 1789, "the people" meant white, male, citizen landowners. Period.

Then quote the part of the Constitution defining "the people" of the 2nd Amendment.

Today, of course, "the people" also include non-whites and women.

Which is it, RP? White male citizen landowners, or ... who? You're very fluid as to which applies today, yet claim absolutes each time you type. Does it currently apply to a white male able-bodied 39-year-old citizen seeking to purchase a new M4 from a dealer who lawfully possesses one and is willing to sell if only the BATFE would approve the Form 4 transfer paperwork and accept the $200 tax?

37 posted on 10/17/2007 9:05:22 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The first amendment protected the freedom of speech, press, and religion for all persons. The right of assembly and the right to petition the government were protected only for "the people" - white, male, citizen landowners.

Care to detail how the Constitution differentiates those two groups?

38 posted on 10/17/2007 9:09:51 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"a phrase as broad as "the people".

Broad? I just finished posting the U.S. Supreme Court's definition, and they defined it quite narrowly. The Founders knew who they were talking about. If you need a definition from the U.S. Constitution, look no further than Article I, Section 2 (my underline):

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..."

Who were they? Who voted? All persons? All individuals? All citizens?

In 1789, they were white, males, citizen landowners. Tell me who else voted back then. Tell me who else belonged in the group, "the people" -- Women? Children? Indians? Slaves? Foreigners? Illegals? Prisoners? The insane?

I'm done explaining. Now it's your turn. You tell me the original meaning of "the people" in 1789 when the second amendment was written. Who's rights were the Founding Fathers protecting?

39 posted on 10/18/2007 5:11:56 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"You're very fluid as to which applies today, yet claim absolutes each time you type."

So free speech doesn't apply to radio, television and the Internet? If it did, that would be a very fluid interpretation according to you.

"Does it currently apply to a white male able-bodied 39-year-old citizen seeking to purchase a new M4 from a dealer who lawfully possesses one and is willing to sell if only the BATFE would approve the Form 4 transfer paperwork and accept the $200 tax?"

By "it" you mean the phrase "the people" in the second amendment? Yes, the phrase "the people" certainly includes him. As a member of a well regulated state Militia, his right to keep and bear Militia-type arms is protected from federal infringement by the second amendment.

40 posted on 10/18/2007 5:24:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Care to detail how the Constitution differentiates those two groups?"

Read the damn thing already. The first amendment protection of rights apply to everyone except where it specifically limits the protection of those rights.

If you need details from the U.S. Constitution, you're going to be disappointed.

41 posted on 10/18/2007 5:31:21 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
robertpaulsen wrote:

The right of assembly and the right to petition the government were protected only for "the people" - white, male, citizen landowners."

And

"I was merely correcting the poster who thought the Founding Fathers intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms for all persons. They intended no such thing. They didn't even protect it for all citizens."

I beg to differ. My take on American history is that the founding fathers meant for the rights enjoyed by the ruling class to eventually be enjoyed by all people, not just their white male selves; Hamilton was more of the mind you describe, but Jefferson and Madison were not. Given the societal mores and prejudices of that time, though, to get the Constitution ratified at all, some things had to be left out. Colorable arguments have been made that the abolition of slavery was treated similarly, left for a later time, just in order to get _something_ established. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" I believe was the operating principle then as it is so often now.

You make what appears to me to be a leap of faith in your interpretation of the ruling on United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, stating that "white, male, citizen landowners" were the only ones with a "connection with this country". Granted, being able to vote was a great power they held over women, blacks, etc. at this nation's founding, but there is no language in that decision linking the extremely narrow criteria of having voting rights to an absolute "connection", a term that itself is, in legal terms, a mile wide.

Just my $0.02,

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

42 posted on 10/18/2007 6:12:59 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Well, let’s cut through the nonsense. Do you believe that Americans today have the right of self-defense? (which means firearms of course)


43 posted on 10/18/2007 6:24:43 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Re-read. I didn’t say anything about a state militia.


44 posted on 10/18/2007 6:28:40 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Don’t feed the troll. This isn’t the only issue they are a complete commie a$$tard on. The poster in question has an authoritarian streak a blue mile wide...


45 posted on 10/18/2007 6:37:34 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Spot on. Well said


46 posted on 10/18/2007 7:11:19 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*RWVA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
"but there is no language in that decision linking the extremely narrow criteria of having voting rights to an absolute "connection"

It's difficult to imagine a connection to a country which does not allow you to vote. That's not to say that if you aren't allowed to vote you don't love your country or you're not patriotic. But you have no say. So where's the "connection"?

"My take on American history is that the founding fathers meant for the rights enjoyed by the ruling class to eventually be enjoyed by all people"

All people or all citizens? Big difference. All citizens or certain citizens?

Did they mean to extend voting rights eventually to children? The insane? Foreign visitors? Illegal aliens? They are also people (persons). They all enjoy the inalienable rights to liberty and life.

Granted, we have expanded the definition of "the people" through the amendment process to include nonwhites and women. But it still doesn't include all persons or even all citizens. It still, today, refers to a select group.

47 posted on 10/18/2007 7:14:51 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn; All

Try being a veteran with a head injury! We can have our rights trampled at a wim via the va. So I am posting this, for all to read....

“....Goverments are instututed amgon Men{and women} deriving their just powers from the consent of the goverend. That whenever any form of goverment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new goverment,laying it foundation on such principles and orignanizing it powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudance, indeed will dicate that goverments long established should not be changed for light and transiet causes; and accordingly all experiance hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same objective evinces a design to reduce them under absoluts DESPOTISM, it is their RIGHT, their DUTY, to THROW OFF such goverment, and to provide new guards for their furtue security.....”

Maybe the time is coming.....


48 posted on 10/18/2007 7:18:54 AM PDT by TMSuchman (American by birth, Rebel by choice, Marine by act of GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
"Well, let’s cut through the nonsense. Do you believe that Americans today have the right of self-defense? (which means firearms of course)"

Everyone has the inalienable, God-given right to self defense. It's part of a right to life. Our country protects this right for all persons -- citizens, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, prisoners, the insane, children -- everyone. No exceptions.

In addition, you have a natural right to defend yourself with any weapon you want. No one "gives" you this right. It's yours. You're born with it.

Now, if you choose to live in a certain state, then you agree to live under the constitution of that state. If that state constitution is written such that your right to defend yourself includes defending yourself with a certain type of weapon, then that right is protected.

If that state constitution is written such that your right to defend yourself does not include defending yourself with a certain type of weapon, then that right is not protected. That doesn't mean you don't have the right. It means the right is not protected and laws MAY be written against that right.

For example, the right to keep and bear arms is not protected by the State of California (and five other states). But millions of Californians legally own guns and use them to protect themselves.

49 posted on 10/18/2007 7:33:32 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Re-read. I didn’t say anything about a state militia."

You were referring to the second amendment which does.

50 posted on 10/18/2007 7:34:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson