Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analyzing The 2nd Amendment
OUTDOORSBEST ^ | July 16, 2004 | Don B. Kates

Posted on 07/16/2004 8:59:00 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-268 last
To: Robert357
Again, please don't ask me to try to make sense of these federal laws.

No, the question was rhetorical.

251 posted on 07/19/2004 6:06:45 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: baseballfanjm; All

The other side to the 2ndA is that you don't HAVE to have arms! Unlike Switzerland e.g., you are NOT FORCED to have any armament!

I cannot understand how any1 can miss the whole point of the American Revolution and what it taught the generation who fought it.

The Founders were all about *recognizing* (as opposed to GRANTING, which too many here seem to think not to mention all the Joe Schmoes out there) NATURAL RIGHTS.

If they were concerned that there are NATURAL rights such as the right to self-defense (in whatever form!) which cannot be infringed and that they recognized in the BOR, how on earth would the Founders think it was OK for states' gov's (as part of the nation) to infringe these *natural rights* (Jefferson's "inalienable") any more than the national gov?

Unbelievable!


252 posted on 07/19/2004 9:01:14 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
It seems Justice Thomas does indeed have a problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism.

Well, there you go. Both the Congress and the USSC are guilty of forcing the states to accept unfunded mandates.

Nobody said otherwise.

Is this Clarence Thomas Appreciation Week, or does your post have a point?

Yeah. You said:"Of course, I'm sure he sees no problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism. That's OK."

I replied: "Do you have an example of Justice Thomas' approval of forcing States to fund judicial activism? If you do, fine. If not, then you have just set up and knocked down a strawman."

Justice Thomas, commenting on one of the cases you cited, wrote disapprovingly of forcing states to fund judicial activism.

The point being, you were wrong about Justice Thomas.

253 posted on 07/19/2004 10:50:01 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You keep leaving out the first part in order to make your point. If the amendment left out the first part, then I'd agree with you. It doesn't, and you shouldn't either.

But it's there, and because it's there, it ties the RKBA to a well regulated militia and to the function of keeping the state free. Since we now have a standing army and we no longer have the type of well regulated militia we once had, I really don't know the standing of the second amendment.

Actually, literary analysis of the 2nd Amendment indicates no condition forced by the "militia" commentary. J. Neil Schulman's The Unabridged Second Amendment contains a more persuasive argument than "but it's there, and because it's there".

254 posted on 07/19/2004 11:11:54 AM PDT by Cloud William (The Second Amendment is the Statute of Liberty! - Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Well, you made no mention of this judicial activism in your original post #190 that you've now acknowledged. It left me with the impression that he was pointing to Congress as the source of the problem.

Thanks to me, we see that the USSC is equally culpable. And he's against that also.

Well, that's good. I still don't see your point in all this. He's against unfunded mandates. Aren't we all?

255 posted on 07/19/2004 11:16:57 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Cloud William
Too bad that J. Neil Schulman's interpretation doesn't matter when it comes to the law. Also, do you think the fact that he's a libertarian and a political activist influences his writing such that his views are rather one-sided?

Did you read my post #246?

256 posted on 07/19/2004 11:29:24 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I still don't see your point in all this.

That robertpaulsen was in error regarding Justice Thomas when he wrote in post #216:

Of course, I'm sure he sees no problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism. That's OK.

257 posted on 07/19/2004 11:39:20 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Too bad that J. Neil Schulman's interpretation doesn't matter when it comes to the law. Also, do you think the fact that he's a libertarian and a political activist influences his writing such that his views are rather one-sided?

As I recall from Schulman's article, he did not come up with that interpreation, he merely passed along the findings of some academic who did the analysis (I can't recall the fellow's name at the moment).

Regardless, the "one-sided view" of that political activist pretty much agrees with the general interpretation of the Second Amendment common until the middle of the 20th century. The notion that the language limits the RKBA to only *one* of the categories of "militia" as defined in the federal statutes is a recent invention, and a shaky argument at best. As far as that interpretation not mattering when it comes to the law, I disagree. Currently, there are Federal Appellate Court rulings which are in direct opposition due precisely to this matter. Hey, if you absolutely want to stand alongside the 9th Circus Court on this issue, knock yourself out.

Did you read my post #246?

Yep. There are differences in how "militia" is defined at the state and federal levels. More later.

258 posted on 07/19/2004 12:13:45 PM PDT by Cloud William (The Second Amendment is the Statute of Liberty! - Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

Very well said!


259 posted on 07/19/2004 12:32:11 PM PDT by baseballfanjm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
No, I believe you misunderstood my question. Unintentionally, I'm sure.

Seems a bit disingenuous on your part to quote Justice Thomas admonishing Congress but leaving out his criticism of the same actions by his own USSC. Given that he's criticized both, I'm simply asking the point of your post #190.

260 posted on 07/20/2004 8:29:57 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Cloud William
"Hey, if you absolutely want to stand alongside the 9th Circus Court on this issue, knock yourself out."

Oh my. Please don't misinterpret an explanation of a ruling as my support of that ruling. Why would you do that?

"As far as that interpretation not mattering when it comes to the law, I disagree."

Well, what I meant was that his interpretation doesn't matter -- if the USSC, or any court, had that interpretation, it would matter.

261 posted on 07/20/2004 8:43:58 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
No, I believe you misunderstood my question. Unintentionally, I'm sure.

Here was your first question to me about my point:

Is this Clarence Thomas Appreciation Week, or does your post have a point?

Post Reply | Private Reply | *To 249*

Since you did not specify otherwise, I took it as refering to #249, since #249 was the post you were replying to. How illogical of me.

Seems a bit disingenuous on your part to quote Justice Thomas admonishing Congress but leaving out his criticism of the same actions by his own USSC.

You're the one who said you were sure Justice Thomas had no problem funding judicial activism.

You failed to point out Justice Thomas' criticism of judicial activism in a prior case which you yourself cited. Now, who was being disingenuous?

Given that he's criticized both, I'm simply asking the point of your post #190.

My point in #190 should have been obvious, but I'll repeat it:

"The gun grabbers will use hook or crook to get around the Second Amendment." That was the point.

To quote from Justice Thomas in Printz:

In my "revisionist" view, see post, at 3, the Federal  Government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which merely allocates to Congress the power "to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states," does not extend to the regulation of wholly intrastate, point of sale transactions. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 584 (1995) (concurring opinion).

Lopez, if you'll recall, was the case in which Justice Thomas wrote so eloquently about the error of the substantial effects doctrine.

I'll be glad to post some of his well thought out opinion from the case. You have but to ask.

262 posted on 07/20/2004 10:58:39 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Oh my. Please don't misinterpret an explanation of a ruling as my support of that ruling. Why would you do that?

Why? Because your comments seem supportive of - or at least sympathetic towards - the "collective right" interpretation, that's why. If I misread that, I apologize.

263 posted on 07/20/2004 1:16:26 PM PDT by Cloud William (The Second Amendment is the Statute of Liberty! - Col. Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Cloud William
"the "collective right" interpretation,"

I suppose we could close our eyes to the fact that the vast majority of the federal courts have ruled that way ....

I say we leave the USSC out of this and strengthen state constitutions.

264 posted on 07/20/2004 1:45:32 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Cloud William
I suppose we could close our eyes to the fact that the vast majority of the federal courts have ruled that way ....

I say we leave the USSC out of this and strengthen state constitutions.

What made you change your mind?

And third, I sure do wish that Justice Thomas would spend less time convincing the public of his position and more time convincing his fellow Justices TO ACCEPT A RKBA CASE.

310 posted on 07/18/2004 5:40:54 PM CDT by robertpaulsen

Post 310

265 posted on 07/20/2004 3:15:26 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Is this your life's calling -- playing "gotcha"?

Two different areas, buttinski. 1) Should Clarence Thomas a) publicly discuss ad nauseum his conservative position on everything from abortion to gun rights? or b) be spending that time pushing his fellow members to take on a RKBA case? Corrct answer: B

2) Should the citizens of a state like California be pushing for a) the USSC to hear a god-awful case like Silveira v Lockyer? or b) their state legislature to amend the state constitution to protect their RKBA? Correct answer: B

266 posted on 07/20/2004 5:48:30 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Speaking of State governments, did you see these two items?

New year brings new laws

Another new law permits criminal charges against gun owners who fail to store weapons safely _ perhaps by using trigger locks _ in cases where a child ends up injuring someone with the gun. The gun owner could be fined and jailed for 30 days.

Such laws won't stop gun violence, but they can have a real impact, said Barbara Shaw, director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority.

``The more society puts its collective foot down, so to speak, the more deterrence we´ll have,´´ she said.

Gov. Blagojevich Launches Children's Mental Health Partnership

Barbara Shaw, Director of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority has been appointed  Partnership Chairwoman. Referring to the challenging task before her committee, she commented, "I look forward to working with the Partnership and the Blagojevich Administration to build our children's social and emotional strength so they can become happy, achieving students and productive, caring citizens.  We expect that Illinois will be a national leader in this effort."

-- See posts 1072 and 1073

267 posted on 07/20/2004 8:53:31 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"Another new law permits criminal charges against gun owners ... where a child ends up injuring someone with the gun."

I wonder. Is it any less severe if the child injures someone else with the cocaine they found? The knives they found? The cleaning products, gasoline, lighters, etc. that they found?

I wonder if there are laws that permit criminal charges against the child's guardians for that?

"Gov. Blagojevich Launches Children's Mental Health Partnership"

I take it that you think this is a method to ban future gun ownership? I'd say that you're seeing black helicopters, but you may have a point. The more kids the state diagnoses with ADD, short-term depression, "behavioral problems", etc., the less gun permits that have to issue later.

Good ol' Ken H -- always thinkin'.

268 posted on 07/21/2004 7:03:48 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-268 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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