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]
So too is my bandying this tioic about with you on this thread. I grow bored. Neither of us will convince the other, although, in truth, I wasn't ever trying to convince you of anything, just explaining my position, which you attack. So, it's over.
While I agree with that statement, I'd also hasten to point out that there is a reason why guns have been referred to as "Liberty's Teeth".
Really? In fact, the most respected record of the convention suggests something entirely different:
”Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound...”
Thursday, May 31, 1787
That hardly looks like a 'proposal' by Mr. Madison “that the fed government have the authority to FORCE states to toe the line and to militarily intervene if necessary.” (Quite the opposite, actually! ;>) Ante up, sport – document your claim, or withdraw it. Or do neither, which is certainly more typical of you and your ‘comic-book’ posts…
;>)
Always willing to be educated wrt [the 9th & 10th] amendments' importance just never have seen much indicating that they were... I don't believe they were ever meant as much more than a sop to the anti-Federalists.
A man you consider to have been both “treasonous” and “scum” apparently thought the 10th Amendment was of some importance:
”I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ [Tenth Amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791
There you have it, sport: “the foundation of the Constitution,” not “a sop to the anti-Federalists”...
;>)
On this we quite agree.
My vehemance regarding renewal of the AWB relates to this outrage.
I own five firearms which are illegal to possess in Kalifornia. The Attorney General of Kalifornia is of such character that I believe he is perfectly capable of executing an outrage in Kalifornia every bit as deadly as Waco. And this he could do over the existence of a four-ounce plastic pistol grip on a rifle.
My intention to leave Kalifornia to the liberals will be of little effect if GWB renders the rest of the nation equally hazardous to gunowners.
The original AWB was unpassable without the ten-year sunsetting provision. If GWB signs a renewal, then he makes possible a situation which was not possible ten years ago. He will make permanent the outlawing of rifles which are not even machine guns.
He will open us up to the claim that all semi-automatic rifles should be outlawed because they are equally deadly as those ugly rifles covered by the AWB.
I believe that GWB just signed a law to criminalize possession of plastic guns which don't even exist. He should at least have made that point at the signing. I give him a pass on this.
Any move to outlaw guns which I have already had to move out of Kalifornia is unacceptable.
I would ask you: Is there no level of gun control from GWB which would cause you to withdraw your support?
If he outlawed all concealable firearms, would you withdraw your support?
If he outlawed any firearm which can hold more than five rounds, would you withdraw your support?
If he signed legislation requiring a $10,000 dollar federal license to possess firearms, would you withdraw your support?
After you get over your depression, it should make you MAD AS HELL.
Soundbytes sound good on the TV, but are of no value when determing policies which relate to ideological imperatives.
I prefer the mentality of the following "gun idolatars" to anything the current GOP is coming up with.
James Madison:
"the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," would enable the people to resist the tyrannical "enterprises of ambition" that many feared the new federal government would pursue. This was in contrast to the "kingdoms of Europe" where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Alexander Hamilton :
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government." Federalist No. 28.
Noah Webster:
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed . . . A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
Tench Coxe:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Abraham Lincoln :
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it."
Senator Russell Feingold :
The purposes of the Second Amendment "include self-defense, hunting, sport, and some certainly would say, as would I, the protection of individual rights against a potentially despotic central government."
Does it not disturb you that you consider the current President a conservative, when compared to the Democrats of the Sixties, he would have been considered a left wing radical?
Hubert Humphrey :
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
In case you haven't figured it out, my idiot child, it is the Second Amendment which make all the others possible. If you are willing to risk it for the sake of immediate political gain, then you are definitely a threat to this country. If Bush, you, and those who think like you are the only hope of conservatism in the USA then we are most certainly doomed.
Not neccessarily, it would depend on exactly how it was done. Delay is not the Speaker of the House, he's Majority Leader, but could certainly twist arms pretty well.
Things get trickey when a bill goes to conferance and the conferance report is then voted on. It tends to be an accept reject kind of thing, and I don't think he can put the vote off.
Actually, the are supposed to take a version of the oath as well. It's required in the Constitution itself, Art. V 3rd paragraph
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The worst thing about local police is that they, unlike sherrif's deputies, don't report to an elected official in most cases. They report to an appointed Chief of Police. Who appoints the CoP varies from the mayor, to the city council, to the city manager, who in turn is not an elected official.
There is some evidence, though perhaps not from the immediate period around ratification of the Constitution.
See: Nunn vs Georgia, an 1846 Georgia Supreme Court decision.
" I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (16 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision "Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence."
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.
Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them as beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, is it competent for the General Assembly to take away this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defence ? In solemnly affirming that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and that, in order to train properly that militia; the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired, are not the sovereign people of the State committed by this pledge to preserve this right inviolate? Would they not be recreant to themselves, to free government, and false to their own vow, thus voluntarily taken, to suffer this right to be questioned? If they hesitate or falter, is it not to concede (themselves being judges) that the safety of the States is a matter of indifference?
Such, I apprehend, was never the meaning of the venerated statesman who recommended, nor of the people who adopted, this amendment.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances; to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; in all criminal prosecutions, to be confronted with the witness against them; to be publicly tried by an impartial jury; and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence, is as perfect under the State as the national legislature, and cannot be violated by either.
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
...
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed. "
"...But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them as beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. "
"Virtually adopted": if it is less hurtful to their feelings I'm perfectly willing to call those who reject the Founders' Constitution "virtual constitutionalist" instead of "living constitutionalists". Apparently people just run away if their belief in a living constitution is pointed out to them, perhaps it would hurt their feelings less to call their rejection of the Founders' Constitution "virtual constitutionalism"- of a virtual constitution written by virtual Founders, virtually ratified by virtual Americans?
This poor judge offers nothing but his desires to support his rejection of Marshall's ruling and dicta- and our history. It's a perfect example of living constitution construction.
In fact it's amazingly perfect.
Thanks.
I had lost sight of the fact that the oath which law enforcement officers are required to take is mandated by the US Constitution.
This mechanism assures that unConstitutional decisions by our Supreme Court will do maximum damage to the Republic. Not only the BATFE but local police will consider themselves completely legitimate in enforcing firearms prohibitions.
Sheriff Mack, of Arizona at the time, I believe, chose to challenge aspects of the Brady Law which required his locale to spend money enforcing a federal law. He was upheld, I think, just prior to the time that the NICS came on line.
This means that the federal government is allowed to infringe my right to keep and bear arms as long as it is willing to pay the law enforcement costs or force me to pay them.
No one will convince the idolators.
This perfectly sums up your POV in regards to possession of arms by free men.
The essence of the RKBA's is that all men have an inherent right to own and use adequate tools for self-defense in all situations. You have reduced that inalienable right, of the sovereign individual to protect and preserve life, into a perverted caricature of idol worship. If life, in your opinion, isn't valuable enough to defend then just what do you consider worthy of worship? SCOTUS decisions? Party politics?
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.