Posted on 03/16/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP
gotta go back to work. have fun. probably pointless, but maybe lurkers will learn a thing or two.
Later.
this makes it clear the police can not protect you.
I would venture to guess that about 90% of freepers would answer in the affirmative.
"I find an absolute lack of the word 'blunderbuss' too - so what? What is it that you don't understand about the phrase "every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American?""
Any link from this to specific arms and any proof that your definition ever was included in what was proposed protected.
it is the equivalent of the old British Navy admonition "go forth and do good things" . Just what was a good thing? Just what arms are covered. I contend it is the arms that are mentioned and not the arms that were not.
So far you have been long on opinion and short on links that put cannon and second amendment in the same sentence.
" I will admit the ancillary writings of the founders as evidence, though not definitive."
You have not rpoduced any writings by the founders that put cannon together with 2dn amendment. You inferr but cannot cite.
"Small arms are not specified in th US Constitution."
True, they are only listed in the writings of the founders and in the state and federal militia acts that were written in support of the second amendment. There was a complete lack of mention of artillery in these same documents.
That's probably why it's against the law to posses one without a federal permit. Too bad the existing gun laws aren't enforced. Maybe we wouldn't need any more. Even get rid of some that don't accomplish anything.
what federal permit? As long as the AK is not full-auto, no federal permit is required.
“I am arguing that your entire mindset is faulty. I and others here have demonstrated it by numerous examples. My citing prohibition of alcohol is just one of these. “
No you and everyone else is responding to a very specific idea, that the second amendment does not extend protection to the private ownership of artillery. You have not offered any direct historic links between the second and any such a right and you have wandered all over the constitution. The idea is simple. If there is a right to artillery under the second, then someone somewhere way back in 1789 would have mentioned it. Congress would have addressed it when they wrote the enabling legislation for the militia; some early court would have upheld it. None of this happened.
“As long as you believe that the Constition grants rights to citizens and that the gov't can do whatever it likes unless there is a specific Constitutional prohibition against it, you will be wrong.
Maybe you like living under an all-powerful gov't, but we don't. We can recognize what the Constitution is intended for. I'm sorry you can't.”
Again you confuse your personal opinion for the law. You remind me of Ashley Wilkes pining for the long gone days of the antebellum south. This is all very noble and entertaining but is says nothing about reality. You need to produce a legal constitutional argument. You have to go from what was really said to what was really said to reach a conclusion and not from point A to point Z without hitting the points in between.
“Now, if you would be so kind as to answer the question, we can continue. Why did it requre an amendment to allow Congress to prohibit alcohol? Under the theories you have put forth, there is no need for this. The people have no Constitutional right to alcohol and Congress has no Constitutional limit on its power to prohibit it.
So why all the fuss with amednments?
Please answer.”
This has NOTHING to do with the second amendment. You are arguing property law and not gun law. Stay on topic please
“you have incorrectly referenced a document
and
I have no responsibility to prove private citizens cannot own artillery
taken together, you are now under such an obligation. Prove your case. Prove my understanding incorrect. Put up or shut up.
and case law is, once again, irrelevant when discussing the meaning of the Constitution. The Constitution predates the case law, and forms the base from which those case laws should be built and understood - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.”
This does not make any sense. You quote the constitution to make points. The points you make are not supported by what you reference and you wan me to make a counter argument. It is like arguing with someone a street corner waving a Bible and speaking of Martian invasion. The two ideas just do not go together.
As to your comments on case law, your OPINION was superseded with the very first Supremem Court case way back when. The courts do not get it right very often but they are the reality we live in. You have offered no evidence tying the second to artillery yet you want me to prove it does not apply, to prove a negative (another logic fallacy). All I can prove is what IS in the Constitution, not what is not.
If your right is there, produce a link to it, a real link that goes from the second to artillery or the other way around. Heck, give me a cite where the two ideas are combined.
I am not, as you say " responding to a very specific idea, that the second amendment does not extend protection to the private ownership of artillery."
I am, rather, asking you to examine the very assumptions you have about the Constitution and the manner in which it handles the powers given to the Congress versus those reserved to the people.
You want to argue minute points without understanding the very basics.
Now, answer the question.
SD
“I am, rather, asking you to examine the very assumptions you have about the Constitution and the manner in which it handles the powers given to the Congress versus those reserved to the people.
You want to argue minute points without understanding the very basics.”
How can I take such a comment seriously when you are bouncing all over the constitution and you constantly confuse your opinion with constitutional law?
If you want to leave the second amendment and speak of general property law, then say so. If, as you note above, you wan to discuss the 9th and 10th amendments, then we can go there. What we cannot do is discuss a second amendment issue using other parts of the constitution as probative.
SD
The theories you are putting forth here are not congruent with the fact that an amendment was necessary. You are arguing that there are no Constitutional rights unless they are explicitly put forth in the Constitution.
You have also argued that the gov't has the power to do anything that it is not Constitutionally prohibited from doing.
So, the question remains. Why couldn't Congress outlaw alcohol by statue? Were they mistaken? Didn't they realize there was no right to alcohol and no limit on Congressional power in this area?
SD
Pittsburgh and Allegheny County have been run almost entirely by the Democratic party for at least 5 decades.
This is a case of politians and police tolerating a certain level of violence and criminality to provide justification for their failed policies. This then allows them to call for more "gun control" and scream for more money to "solve the crime problem". (see Mayor Street- Philadelphia)
The police know who and where but either refuse or are instructed not to do anything.
OR, they are all completely incompetent. Duh?
All AK's are full auto.
Pittsburgh is spelled with an "h".
Earlier I thought the thread was pulled so I privately sent this response to your "other writings of the founders" rather than the Constitution bit. I'll post it in the open now.
Using your logic, since Jefferson owned slaves and slaves are not mentioned as being Men and Women in the Constitution, then slavery was OK?
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.