Replies

"James Madison tried to give the federal government such power but that was rejected by the convention."

I thought the Constitution was created to secure our rights? Looks to me like they provided a way to over-ride state laws and constitutions which infringed on rights with the 'notwithstanding' clause of Article VI.

< snip >

You already know that the Bill Of Rights granted no new powers to the federal government but further restriced the use what powers it had.

It's obvious that Amendment 1 says Congress shall pass no laws, etc. But that is peculiar to that amendment alone.

Amendment 2 appears to be a declaration to all governments, as it did not include the word, 'congress.' Again, the 'notwithstanding' clause should clarify the inclusion of state governments as well.

"No doubt you'll recall that Madison again tried to give the federal government that power to protect some rights from the states in the Bill of Rights, but again it was rejected by congress."

Then why did they include the 'notwithstanding' clause? Exactly WHAT did the clause prevent the state's and courts from legislating if it were not laws and amendments repugnant to and not in pursuance to the Bill of rights/Constitution (a seamless document)?

"The Founders recieve as little regard from people who want to find a federal protection of their RKBA as it does from those who want to find a federal protection of their "right to privacy"."

I suppose if someone wanted to sue for privacy, it would have to go to the SCOTUS. That's what happened, and they got their privacy.

BUT something is not consistent here. A few wanted to sue for keeping and bearing arms, but the SCOTUS would not hear the case. Something is amiss. Homicide is a state issue, so tell me why the Fedguv got involved with Roe? Seems to me their logic is faulty, unless the court wanted to encourage both the murder of the unborn and the unarmed. In either case, they violated the protection of life with Roe and left the people at the mercy of killers with gun control laws.

"But we just can't have a living constitution. Federal RKBA have to be found in the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities". Like it or not."

Sorry, but life is not a privilege or immunity decreed, pronounced and authorized by government. The people were engaged in self defense with weapons long before the 14th Amendment. The right to Life (which is not a right unless you have the means to protect that life) didn't start with the 14th Amendment. And law enforcement is not in the business of protecting your life, as a matter of record. If not them, who? Why you, of course. Think not that we can authorize policemen to arm themselves to protect their lives if we did not have the same right as individuals?