Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
If you want to argue that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, fine, but you cannot use the second amendment for that argument.
Bizarre comment again. I don't need to "argue" that cannons are protected as property under the constitution, because the 2nd clearly protects my right to keep & bear ALL types of arms. Cannons are arms.
I am informing you of that fact. You want to argue against that Constitutional fact.
Why?
Because, while your heart is in the right place, your knowledge of constitutional law and the state of the issue in our courts is so wrong as to place you in jeopardy of arrest if you ever tried to DO what you think is legal. We need voters on the issue, not confused jailbirds.
Another wisecrack, in place of an honest answer. For shame again.
The second is not about property rights but about a specific delineated type of property, arms.
And, -- it clearly says that the right to keep & bear that "type of property" shall not be infringed.
No, it does not address property at all. It addresses arms. That they are property is outside the scope of the amendment.
Gibberish.. --- Your ability to nitpick in an inane fashion appears boundless. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?
The supreme law is our Constitution & Amendments. You claim that governments can declare virtually any type of arm "illegal", -- without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. That view is simply wrong.
Why, cite your cases. Provide your precedence's. Opinion is not enough.
I have. This thread is full of rational 'cites'. The governments 'opinion' that our RKBA's can be infringed by prohibiting assualt weapons, is simply wrong. Yet you support them. Why? Cite your case. Tell us why an ugly black semi auto gun must be banned.
No, what I am saying is that the arms that appear to be protected by the second amendment under the law is the class of arms suitable for militia use as outlined by the founders. You have offered no proof linked to the second that I am wrong. You only offer opinion.
You were given the link to the proof recently published by the Justice Dept, - one that confirms our RKBA's as an individual right. -- You supposedly agreed with that report, yet now you claim that the 'militia' clause limits the "class of arms suitable".
At the founding, both Militia & private individuals owned cannons, as you admitted earlier. We still have that inalienable right, despite infringements supported by misinformed people like you.
You run from your opinion right to the Justice Dept recent opinion embracing an individual right (something I agree with) and then, without laying any legal or constitutional framework, jump to the conclusion that this individual right includes artillery. If you are right, show me the body of law.
There is no "body of law", as you well know. Congress unconstitutionally passed the '34 NFA, 'regulating' our right to own a whole group of weapons, including cannons. This infringement will not stand, as the recent Justice Dept report makes clear.
Why do you fight FOR such infringements?
Jim Verdolini wrote:
Sorry Jonestown, you obviously have no idea of how our government works.
You seem to believe simply scrunching your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears, and endlessly repeating "the clear language" has some Constitutional meaning in the greater world.
Prisons are full of people who are equally confused.
Believe what you will but I recommend NOT mounting that chain gun on your bass boat.
It doesn't matter. If I live IAW my view of the law, if I actually act on my premise, I will not go to jail. If you act IAW your views its off to the carcel you go.
All the pretending the Constitution says and means something that the laws and courts do not agree with, will not make it so.
All the pretending the Constitution says and means something that the laws and courts do not agree with, will not make it so.
You are the one here pretending that Legislators make valid gun laws, & the Courts adjudicate them Constitutionally. Feel free to dream on, as you're fooling no one but yourself.
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.