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

Skip to comments.

Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms
realclearpolitics.com ^ | March 20, 2007 | Pierre Atlas

Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem

On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional. The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."

It is quite likely that this ruling will be appealed to Supreme Court, which hasn't offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment since 1939.

Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."

The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."

But actually, to argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is a reinterpretation of the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.

One of the major concerns of the anti-Federalists during the debate over the Constitution in 1787 was the fact that the new document lacked a Bill of Rights. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the framers promised to pass a Bill of Rights during the First Congress as amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms became part of that package.

What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Was the right to bear arms a collective right for militias, or an individual right for all citizens? The "Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority," from the debates of 1787, is telling. This document speaks...

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-734 next last
To: azhenfud
I'm thinking that notion, when applicable to circumstance, doesn't fit very well with a citizen's right to vote.

When did the phrase "right to vote" enter the lexicon?

101 posted on 03/20/2007 7:33:01 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
To say that the drafters of the Bill of Rights had two distinct meanings for "the people" in the First and Second Amendments strains credulity.

Especially since there is nothing written officially, publically or privately that addresses such a distinction between the two alleged meanings of "the people."

The creation of the BoRs was the subject of endless debate amongst hundreds if not thousands of men at the time. Reams of press were devoted to this debate. The idea that the phrase "the people" had two distinct meanings and no one ever even made a passing reference to that fact is ludicrous.

102 posted on 03/20/2007 7:39:42 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Any natural right may be reasonably regulated by the government for the public good.

Not if that right is guaranteed by the Constitution. Sure, when an individual abuses his rights in a criminal fashion, then I believe he should be regulated. However, once he has done his time, paying his debt to society, and has been deemed fit to return to society, then all his rights and privileges should be restored.

Or do you think that your individual rights should take precedent, and screw everyone else?

That reads like a question a communist would ask. I believe that individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution takes precedent over any and all community concerns.

If the Constitution protects it, then all communities in the US are obligated to honor the Constitution. Any attempts to limit or remove Constitutional guarantees by communites are forbidden by the Constitution to do so. Anything short of an amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the protections contained within remain in full force without exception.

103 posted on 03/20/2007 7:39:53 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Whatever you're drinking, I'll have a double.

Honesty and reason with a dose of thinking outside the box is what I'm drinking. You're free to help yourself.

104 posted on 03/20/2007 7:40:30 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Zon
That's a very interesting observation. Aside from the obvious, steak knives and baseball bats, suddenly I realized the absurdity of limiting the primary thrust of the 2nd amendment to just the 2nd amendment only; regards the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear _______ (fill in blank with any object) shall not be infringed.

How many objects are there which would not be protected by a maximally-interpreted Second Amendment? Distilled alcohol may of course be used to make firebombs (surely firebombs predat Molotov). Most objects could be used to strike people. Making water into a striking weapon would have taken a few months (wait for winter) but it could certainly have been used as a weapon once frozen. Even a bag full of wet noodles could have been used as a weapon by stuffing the noodles quickly into the victim's mouth so as to cause choking.

105 posted on 03/20/2007 7:43:56 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
I think we're into semantics here.
The Founding Fathers spoke of natural rights ("unalienable Rights") "endowed by their Creator" to include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
-PJ

You're arguing much more than 'semantics' PJ.. -- The communitarian's among us simply do not agree with the principle of "unalienable Rights".
-- To them, all rights can be alienated by majority rule.
~Any~ individual right can be regulated by the democratic process. The public good trumps constitutional freedom.

106 posted on 03/20/2007 7:50:58 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Thanks, that's a distinction I hadn't considered.

Is "communitarian" the 21st century version of communist, much as "progressive" is the 21st century version of liberal?

-PJ

107 posted on 03/20/2007 7:57:57 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms"

Not in New York state.


108 posted on 03/20/2007 7:58:05 PM PDT by baubau (BOYCOTT Bank of America for Issuing Credit Cards to 3rd World Illegal Aliens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
But that said, no right is absolute. All rights have limitations and come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech does not include the right to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater. ... And gun rights advocates need to accept the fact that those rights are not unlimited-...

True. But, as in the example of crying "fire" in a crowded theater, no restriction is acceptable before some harm has actually been committed.

109 posted on 03/20/2007 7:58:26 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baubau

Yes. It does. Your current unConstitutional gun laws "not withstanding".


110 posted on 03/20/2007 8:00:33 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I tried to buy them legally, but say you need references.

Don't tell this is OK, 'cause it ain't.

How is the little angel?


111 posted on 03/20/2007 8:04:15 PM PDT by baubau (BOYCOTT Bank of America for Issuing Credit Cards to 3rd World Illegal Aliens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"and which is exactly what they fear."

Fear the tyrant that fears your gun.

112 posted on 03/20/2007 8:06:31 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: baubau

111

Oh yeah!


113 posted on 03/20/2007 8:06:53 PM PDT by baubau (BOYCOTT Bank of America for Issuing Credit Cards to 3rd World Illegal Aliens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Zon

The gun grabbers know damn well what the Constitution means . They just change what they want it to mean when its suits their needs. It's written in plain English .


114 posted on 03/20/2007 8:12:04 PM PDT by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Yes. My point was that it shouldn't be or isn't necessary for an object to be designated a weapon in order for the right of the people to keep an bear that object not to be infringed. That in part, is what the 9th and 10th amendments essentially say.


115 posted on 03/20/2007 8:16:46 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
12

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803825/posts?page=8#8

Your newbie bias is right there in you tag line. I note you didn't deny anything I wrote. BTW, I said nothing about communists. You may want to use a dictionary.

communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist


116 posted on 03/20/2007 8:20:08 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Please disregard the first part of post 116. It got erroneously attached.

communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist

 

117 posted on 03/20/2007 8:22:00 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

Well Renquist said that very same thing one time. That the entire federal gun control scheme is unconstitutional. Of coase it was not said in a case but the did say that.


118 posted on 03/20/2007 8:22:18 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
They were afraid of losing, which is not unreasonable with some of SCOTUS' recent 5 - 4 rulings with the left winning.

Have you thought about that? They were afraid of losing a case involving the 2nd amendment? Oh well, the fearless Cato Institute has one upped them.

119 posted on 03/20/2007 8:35:24 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Have you thought about that?

I wrote it was not unreasonable. If SCOTUS rules it's only a collective right defying logic, I wouldn't be surprised. Remember Lawrence, Kelo, Campaign Finance Reform, etc. That court had 7 pubbie nominated justices, IIRC.

120 posted on 03/20/2007 9:34:01 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

But here is the catch how are you going to get your guns home. You wait they will find that loophole.


121 posted on 03/20/2007 9:37:11 PM PDT by lndrvr1972
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
With the exception of Miller, not one lawsuit.

First of all "Miller" was not a lawsuit, it arose out a criminal prosecution, with Miller and Layton being the object. The trial court through out the indictment, because the law in question violated the Constitution, and thus was not a law at all.

There have been numerous cases since then, here's a sampling of Supreme Court cases touching on the issue (not every case on the list is post NFA as some bear on state laws, the "other Miller" for example), and Other court cases (not all of them federal)>

There have been many cases, not lawsuits, which are civil actions, where the Supreme Court refused to "grant cert" that is hear the cases, leaving the lower court ruling stand without creating national precedent or deciding the issue one way or another. They generally don't give there reasoning for doing so. IMHO they are ducking the cases, but that is only an opinion. Not all of the cases linked above, or even most of them, bear directly on the meaning and applicability of the Second Amendment, but all bear on "gun laws" of one sort or another.

Two examples of denial of cert, both fairly recent, are Silveria (9th circuit) and Emerson (5th Circuit).

122 posted on 03/20/2007 9:40:45 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Something that is being forgotten about a SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment. Its been pointed out several times on this thread that liberals haven't any interest in upholding the constitution, rather they seek ways to tear down its original purpose of protecting our God given rights. The majority of the justices are liberals. Their ideology will over ride any legal arguments. The DC ruling will not stand.


123 posted on 03/20/2007 9:41:17 PM PDT by Hatband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Zon; Political Junkie Too
1. You might want ro reread Political Junkie Too's tag line (I think I got it)

2. you may want to use a dictionary.
Oh please a dictionary tells you what the meaing was back then. It's a label. amd it doesn't tell you what the latest users are trying to sneak in under that label case in point liberalism:

Communitarianism is the other end of the libertarian spectrum, just as progressive is the other end of the conservative spectrum

Communitarianism From Wikipedia

124 posted on 03/20/2007 9:45:00 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Since you didn't ask: Libertartian conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Thanks and disregarded.

-PJ

125 posted on 03/20/2007 9:52:52 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

See post 117.


126 posted on 03/20/2007 10:04:16 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Zon
You assume an awful lot. An awful lot that you are wrong about. How does it feel and think of yourself as having assumed wrong. Especially since you probably don't know what you are wrong about.

My use of "you" was meant to indicate a collective "you" not necessarily you individually.

I think ostracism is far more effective.

Individuals can do whatever they want, including ostracism. But governments cannot violate the restrictions of the Constitution. Arms are arms, if you want to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, no matter how "reasonable" the infringement, you must amend the document, or ignore it. The only exception, which your example comes close to, is where rights conflict. My right to drive down the street, may mean that you can't use that street for a protest march for example.

Thus restrictions on keeping area effect weapons would need to be subject to "strict scrutiny", to be certain that the regulations or restrictions do not deny the right protected entirely and are the least possible restriction on that right consistent with protecting other rights or the public safety.

Nuclear weapons, are *hard* to set off, they are most unnatural devices. Thus some minimal standards to be certain that a weapon wasn't dangerous unless the owner intended it to be would be OK, but pure bans would probably not be, since the end of protecting the neighborhood/city could be accomplished by less restrictive means than a pure ban. The same would be true of storage of ammunition for that 155mm, the piece itself is just a big boat anchor and not even a fire hazard without the ammunition.

The Swiss keep full auto assault rifles (or battle rifles in the case of the older folks) in their homes, and some keep heavier crew served stuff, as well as the demolition charges for the local bridge or bridges, which have built in chambers for the charges, but that's as reserve members of the Army (well not quite since when they "get out" they can buy the individual weapon and continue to keep it at home, or could last I checked anyway), but the control of the weapons is still individual, indicating that even heavy weapons can be safely stored by individuals. Similarly there are people who own howitzers, although most are older WW-II era weapons and of a bit smaller caliber, they just have to pay the darned tax, and have a big storage shed. Peaceable folks don't want to blow up their own house along with the neighborhood, and those who own such weapons have managed not to do so.

The biggest thing is that there is no line of demarcation. Even a .22 could kill the neighbor kid should it be accidentally discharged in just the wrong direction. (out the window and into the neighbor's window.

Remember the second amendment is no protection for the actual *use* of arms, and especially not their misuse, only keeping and bearing.

127 posted on 03/20/2007 10:05:30 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
As a strong second Amendment supporter, I would agree with your last sentence, however where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers? Are citizens to be allowed these as well? I don't have an answer, and am actually asking the question.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was for defense and security, both personally and collectively as a nation. Certainly any weapon, including a knife or small pistol can be used defensively or offensively. But the point is, the bearing of arms recognized in the US Consitution was meant as defensive and specific as to who they should be used against. Those would would threaten you as an incividual or collectively as a nation.

A nuclear weapon or primarily indiscriminate type of weapon type of WMD with great likelyhood of collateral harm to innocents was not intended. An anti-tank weapon or howitzer? Yes. A nuclear weapon or other WMD ... no.

128 posted on 03/20/2007 10:06:44 PM PDT by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
"...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."

It means that No state can pass a law, or have a State Constitutional provision, which conflicts with the Federal Constitution. If they have such "laws", the are null and void, just like any Federal law which violates the Constitution or a State law that violates a provision of that state's constitution.

129 posted on 03/20/2007 10:09:20 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are acknowledged to be preexisting.

Bears repeating.
The Constitution is merely a document that outlines the limits to be placed on government. Not a document that grants any rights whatsoever.

How sad that so many have forgotten or never learned this simple fact.

130 posted on 03/20/2007 10:12:24 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Don't question faith. Don't answer lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"I wrote it was not unreasonable. If SCOTUS rules it's only a collective right defying logic, I wouldn't be surprised. Remember Lawrence, Kelo, Campaign Finance Reform, etc. That court had 7 pubbie nominated justices, IIRC."

Thanks for the reminder. /sarc off.

My point is that we don't refuse to fight the good battle because we fear we might lose.

But now you could be right on target if the gun grabbin (BARF ALERT) Rudy Giuliani is elected President.


131 posted on 03/20/2007 10:13:26 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: supercat
When did the phrase "right to vote" enter the lexicon?

Constitutionally, in the 14th amendment's section 2, Which has teeth! Big nasty teeth in fact.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

132 posted on 03/20/2007 10:23:08 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Hatband
Their ideology will over ride any legal arguments. The DC ruling will not stand.

If you are correct, and the Supremes hear the case and overturn the DC circuit, ruling that the right is a "Right of the states", it's best we find out now, rather than after the frog is more thoroughly boiled.

133 posted on 03/20/2007 10:28:13 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; Americanwolf; ..
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
134 posted on 03/20/2007 10:38:22 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

There's always the possibility that my opinion that the SCOTUS is politicized and that their findings will be the result of ideology rather than legal argument is wrong. I certainly hope so. The problem is, I don't think so. Yes, it would be better to know the answer to that sooner rather than later.


135 posted on 03/20/2007 10:44:10 PM PDT by Hatband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
My point is that we don't refuse to fight the good battle because we fear we might lose.

I fight when I have to. I did two tours in Vietnam as a grunt. I had no enthusiasm before we got into Iraq because I feared what could happen during the occupation, especially here at home. I thought the NRA was trying to be prudent, preparing the battlefield in the hope that time would provide more more conservative nominees for SCOTUS. O'Connor has been replaced, thank God. If you read that decision, I think you'll agree that there's a very good chance that it will go to SCOTUS sooner rather than later.

136 posted on 03/20/2007 10:50:46 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

El Gato: False test. Arms are arms. You don't like it, or want "reasonable restrictions"? Fine amend the Constitution, don't ignore it's plain language.

Whose test was a false test? Oh... mine. You're referencing me? 70

My use of "you" was meant to indicate a collective "you" not necessarily you individually.

Silly me. I thought you were referencing me in that paragraph. ;-)

It is always the writer's responsibility to ensure clarity in his and her writing, not the readers fault for not "getting it". I suppose you'll not make the same mistake and instead you'll use something like person (anonymous individual) rather than you.

Individuals can do whatever they want, including ostracism. 

Individuals, that's unambiguous. 

Arms are arms, if you want to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, no matter how "reasonable" the infringement, you must amend the document, or ignore it.

You, that's ambiguous. Why the switch to ambiguity? 

But governments cannot violate the restrictions of the Constitution.

Actually, it's illegal, unconstitutional for government officials to violate the restrictions of the constitution. Discern between government (the whole of it) and government employee which as a part of government and can act. Much of government is inanimate.cannot: AUXILIARY VERB: The negative form of can

Government officials do violate the restrictions of the constitution. That's obvious. Therefore they can illegally violate the restrictions of the constitution.

Remember the second amendment is no protection for the actual *use* of arms, and especially not their misuse, only keeping and bearing.

I never thought otherwise. On this particular discussion I've focused on the aspect of storing various arms with regards to safety -- not the usage of the arms nor how the second amendment treats arms. So perhaps when you wrote, "Remember the second amendment..." you were reminding yourself. ;-)

137 posted on 03/20/2007 10:54:17 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; robertpaulsen
I see "Congress shall make no law" in the first amendment, but none of the rest of the Bill of Rights. So what makes you think that the rest don't.

From the very beggining the Bill of Rights have only applied to the federal government and not to the states. Some states even had an official religion after the ratification of the constitution.

It was not until the 14th amendment and subsequent "incorporation" SCOTUS rulings that certain Bill of Rights protections have been applied to the states.

RobertPaulson, has been 100% correct on his posts so far - at this point in time, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled that the 14th amendment 'incorporates' 2nd amendment protections to the states.

138 posted on 03/20/2007 11:00:47 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; robertpaulsen
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

Nope, you are the one with the fundamental misunderstanding. The Bill of Rights affirms the rights of the People from the Federal government, not the state governments. Until the passage of the 14th amendment, the individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.

Wikipedia has a good primer on this subject. Just read the article Incorporation (Bill of Rights).

States had established state churches up until the 1820s, and Southern states, beginning in the 1830s, could ban abolitionist literature. In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights provided "security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government—not against those of local governments."

139 posted on 03/20/2007 11:08:02 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Zon

If potential damage to the neighbors is the standard by which legality is determined, all gas stoves and ovens should be outlawed (especially the Buick-sized 1950s one that was in this house when we bought it).


140 posted on 03/20/2007 11:39:51 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
...individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.

Then how do you reconcile other clauses in the Constitution, such as the "full faith and credit clause", Article IV Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Or Section 2 Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

You can't have states with different views of Constitutional rights and still have them recognize opposing rights from other states.

Until the passage of the 14th amendment, the individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.

or the clarifications in Amendment XIV Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The 14th amendment clarified what already existed in the Constitution. I disagree that prior to the 14th the states could do whatever they wanted. They may still have, and it may have taken the 14th to explicitly make them stop, but the language was already there to prevent it, just as the language was there to prevent much of what is ignored today in the Constitution.

-PJ

141 posted on 03/20/2007 11:52:36 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: baubau
Not in New York state.

Would you care to elaborate?

142 posted on 03/20/2007 11:57:56 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: lndrvr1972
But here is the catch how are you going to get your guns home. You wait they will find that loophole.

Would you care to explain that?

143 posted on 03/21/2007 12:02:58 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

If your reasoning were to apply to the First Amendment, then free speech would not apply to TV, Radio, or the Internet. One you put ANY restrictions you are opening the possibility that the Government will use it to restrict everything. Tactical nuclear weapons would be restricted through there cost and the technology needed to maintain them, the 155mm Howitzers would be fun, but you will be financially responsible if it knocks down a house. Can you imagine the cost of insurance if you obtained a working Howitzer?


144 posted on 03/21/2007 12:41:10 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin

It's up to each library ... man.


145 posted on 03/21/2007 5:18:46 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"Therefore, the Bill of Rights was meant to be a counter to the powers of the federal government by attempting to list what rights were positively not ceded to it (retained by the states and the people)."

You make a statement like that and then have the cojones to tell me I don't understand the constitution?

146 posted on 03/21/2007 5:22:02 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: bone52
"At some point in your posts, you normally say that you support the 2nd, but that in light of all of the precedent, it is unrealistic to hope that this amendments rights will ever be interpreted as individual."

Correct. The overwhelming majority of the lower courts, and lower court opinions, support the "collective rights" theory. I am afraid that if it goes to the U.S. Suprreme Court at this time they will go with the majority.

"None of your comments are supported by any reading of the plain language of the amendment."

The "plain language of the amendment". I like that.

"Read the decision and answer the arguments. Try it."

Look up "cognitive dissonance". Try it.

147 posted on 03/21/2007 5:28:34 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane
And your example offers no formal, organized and well regulated way that the citizenry will go about obtaining and reading books.

You essentially say, "if people read, they will be educated, and that's good". Try again.

148 posted on 03/21/2007 5:39:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"The Founding Fathers spoke of natural rights ("unalienable Rights")"

I intentionally said "natural" rights to distinguish them from "inalienable" rights. Yet you just squish them together. There is a difference.

"Regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern concept of regulations put in place by the federal government."

I never said it did.

149 posted on 03/21/2007 5:44:23 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

cost of insurance? a howitzer is like a ferrari. if you can afford to own it, you'll probably never think twice about how much insurance is.


150 posted on 03/21/2007 5:56:24 AM PDT by absolootezer0 (stop repeat offenders - don't re-elect them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-734 next 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