Posted on 02/09/2004 9:03:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Washington -- Gun control hasn't emerged as a leading issue in the 2004 presidential race, but that is likely to change as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein intensifies her effort to win renewal of the decade-old assault weapons ban, which expires in September.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
But the question is --- what do you say "the people" means in the Second Amendment and the other noted parts of the Constitution.
Oh yeah? If a few of "the people" whose right to bear arms had not been infringed by the FAA (a part of the federal government), had been on those airplanes on 9-11, the World Trade Center would still be standing, but there would be 19 dead or severly wounded Islamaniacs, and maybe just as many dead passengers and crew, but only because those armed members of the group known as "the people" might not have acted in time to save the aircraft, but they would have saved those in the towers and in the Pentagon. A few armed members of the militia around key infrastructure would go a long way to protecting it as well.
2. Hate all forms of hunting. Killing an animal for food is one of the most barbaric and bloodthirsty things around. Hunting isn't necessary. That's what we have supermarkets for. Remember, YOU know much more about how animals live in the forest than the people who have actually been there because you watched the Nature Channel (see #1).
3. Guns cause crime. The mere possession of a gun will give a person the feeling of absolute power and the desire to go out and kill people. It's true. Remember, the media told you that guns cause crime. (see #1)
4. Ugly guns are evil guns. The media reported that Sen. Feinstein of California says that ugly guns can kill an entire room full of politicians with only three bullets! It must be true (see #1). Ugly names are also bad. Black Talon has got to be more vicious than a "Safety Slug."
5. Gun Control Works! Ignore the facts and continue to say it. Eventually you will convince yourself it is true. Besides, 95% of the time the media says it works (see #1). It must be true.
6. Assume everyone is like you. You know that if you had a gun, you might someday want to shoot your spouse in a fit of anger. Therefore everyone would probably shoot their spouses during an argument if they had a gun.
7. Be squeamish about everything. People who shoot criminals are KILLING them! It's okay to defend yourself with nerf bats, lemon juice and a noise maker, because those things don't hurt other human beings (the criminals). If you shoot them you have a mess -- blood, guts and all kinds of yucky stuff around (Eeack!!). It is better to die than kill a criminal and have than on your conscience for the rest of your life!!
8. All you need is "911". The police will always be there. If you are attacked at home, just call the police and they will be there in an instant as you put down the receiver. They know exactly where you live and are right around the corner, just like in the movies and TV (see #1). If you are attacked in public, don't worry. The police have ESP and will be right there.
9. Try to be as ignorant as possible about guns. Ignorance really is bliss. People naturally fear anything they don't understand. Don't worry, be blissful.
10. Spread as much 'disinformation' as possible. By spreading lies, rumors, misinformation and other falsehoods, you keep the general public confused, misinformed and ignorant as to the truths of gun ownership (see #9). The media does this all the time so it must be the right thing to do (see #1).
But leaving aside that there is no historical basis for thinking the Second applied to the states why do you even want to? There must be a reason for this passion and I'm frustrated that I can't see it.
So you believe that the founders of this nation went through all the trouble of ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but what the heck, lets let the states do whatever the hell they want??? If the Second was supposed to stop the infringement of a inalienable by Fed. Gov., why would it not be an inalienable right of the people as far as states are concerned also?
Maybe I don't understand your question. Why we have such passion about the Second Amendment applying to the states? Because it was supposed to serve as a restraint on government.
I really butchered that one.
"If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control.
And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!
You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?
What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. "
The states had their own traditions and Bills of Rights, it was never the intention of the Founders to limit state governments with the Constitution except where power had to be given to the new government for it to function effectively.
My question is of this desire to see the Constitution differently from how the Founders did. RKBA people are in general supporters of the intent of the Founders and there just isn't ANY evidence that they intended the central government to have this power over the states.
Until the 14th, application of the Bill of Rights to the States and their locals was not law, nor was it thought to be appropriate. That means Article VI applied only to laws established by Congress according to the Constitution. Just as the founders saw the prospect of the feds violating States rights, the feds saw the prospect and reality of the States violating the people's rights. Those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, in other founding docs, and protected under the Constitutional duty the feds have to ensure both representative govm't and rights protection.
The reason for the 14th.
Tell me this. Do you believe that the founders of this nation believed in inalienable rights?
It was a long, hard day at work, so be gentle.
That's right. In the beginning the States were thought to be the guarantors and protectors of Freedom and rights.
They were a bit shortsighted in other areas too. Especially their failure to protect against the establishment of redistribution schemes created by politicians to gain power.
They were a bit shortsighted in other areas too. Especially their failure to protect against the establishment of redistribution schemes created by politicians to gain power.
WOW! Someone I agree with totally. That is a real novelty lately.
On that note, I quit.
For tonight anyway.
There is no historical evidence that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. There is good historical evidence that it applied only to the federal government.
I'm not saying that your's is an unreasonable interpretation- just that it is not the interpretation that was held when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified and put in operation.
As I said, I just don't understand why people want to believe otherwise.
Apparently it is merely the desire to read the most rights into the Constitution. I think the most rights can be had by being faithful to the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders. A living Constitution is too easy to abuse- no matter how well meaning one may be.
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.