Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem
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. Of course these days the first amendment does apply to the states, but is poorly observed by Congress, which does make such laws "abridging the freedom of speech" and "of the press" as well, to keep themselves from being corrupted. It didn't work too well, but it did help ensure their individual re-elections.
-PJ
That's easy enough to understand.
A serious question for you.
I don't understand what this phrase means:
"...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."
Can you paraphrase that into today's english for me?
I would argue only when an individual abuses that right.
Meantime I am confused as to why the NRA opposed this suit?
I don't think swords were particularly concealed.
Certainly open carry was a common practice. While it would have been absurd to suggest that a gentleman with a sword in his belt be required to remove his belt and place it over his coat every time he went outside in cold weather, I don't know to what extent it was accepted for people to deliberately conceal weapons on their person.
The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government from day one, and that's how the Bill of Rights were enforced for 150 years.
Or do you think that your individual rights should take precedent, and screw everyone else?
The second amendment, being an amendment, overrides the exercise of the power granted Congress in the main body, if that power is exercised in such a way as to "infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Prohibition certainly violates the right to keep arms, if one cannot acquire them, it's very difficult to keep them.
The same is true of Congress exercise of it's other powers in such a way as to violate the "restrictive clauses" that we call the Bill of Rights.
Not if it's .50 BMG, a .300 Win Mag, most any of the "Nitro" rounds, or really most any rifle round other than .22 rimfire, and even those are "dangerous to 1 mile" (or more).
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.
Just as a collector's permit to own military type rifles (a.k.a. assault rifles) is an infringement. One deterent to a government trying to rule it people by military force is that the people are better armed than that military force. Note the words of one of our founders, Federalist Noah Webster:
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
They DID choose it carefully. Which makes me wonder why you're ignoring what they wrote.
Do you realize what the second amendment says? Do you think it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? That's certainly all you're focused on and talking about.
Anyways, the courts have ruled that it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a state Militia from federal infringement.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is quite clear as to which government the Bill of Rights applies.
"Of course these days the first amendment does apply to the states, but is poorly observed by Congress"
And the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine what they'll do to the second. I can't believe you're actually anxious to give them that chance.
Or do you think that your individual rights should take precedent, and screw everyone else?
I think that "communitarian" spin has been done to death since FDR, and we are the poorer for it.
I agree. I am at a loss to explain why some of the federal laws (the NFA, the GCA, the AWB) were not challenged as violating the second amendment. With the exception of Miller, not one lawsuit.
In the following statement, who is allowed to read books?
A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
Is it just the well educated, or is it only citizens or is it all the people?
You and your FDR. You're going on record to say that prior to FDR, natural rights were not reasonably restricted for the public good?
The USSC has said in Miller that the first part of the Second Amendment exists to clarify what is meant by the term "arms". It is not restricted to "hunting" or "sporting" weapons, but nor is it so broad as to include any and all artifacts which could conceivably by used somehow as weapons. After all, if everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon were protected, the government couldn't impose any tariffs or other restrictions on much of anything (an object could be used as a weapon, such restrictions would constitute "infringement").
The staffer who wrote the syllabus for Miller seems to have found that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but I see no reason why that person's opinion should bear any weight whatsoever.
I'm going on record as saying that prior to FDR, "regulating commerce" wasn't a back door to the federal government assuming control of our everyday lives.
I distinctly remember you defending the AWB as within the federal government's power under the commerce clause, by virtue of the New Deal substantial effects doctrine.
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.