Posted on 12/17/2007 12:24:44 PM PST by Hazcat
There is one difference. The U.S. Constitution refers to "Citizens of a State" or "citizens of the United States" to make a distinction between the two.
So, in your view, the right is not protected federally but at the state level.
That is what the second amendment was designed to protect against.
So Congress could not call up the Illinois NG into federal service and issue a lawful order to disarm? Is that yor claim?
What he means is that the State has the option of infringing your RKBA, and the Second Amendment doesn't stop them.
Let me ask you this: Do you buy his claim that the Second Amendment is a check on Congress's power in I.8.15 & I.8.16?
Yes.
If it was protected federally it would have to be protected equally among the states. It's not. Some states protect concealed carry and some don't. Some have an AWB and some don't.
Whoa! You were talking about "a well regulated militia". They cannot be disarmed by Congress.
Now you're asking about the National Guard? What does the second amendment have to do with the National Guard? Are you saying it protects the members of the National Guard?
Correct, provided the state constitution allows such an infringement.
Art 6 para 2. It applies to the States as well.
We've been over this before and yet you continue to spout the same drivel thread after thread.
I'll stop as soon as you can prove it applies to the states. Every single U.S. Supreme Court ruling, every federal Circuit Court ruling, every District Court ruling says it does not.
Article VI, Section 2 says the constitution is binding on both the federal government and the states. It does not mean that everything IN the constitution applies to the states -- if it did then the states can print money.
Hamilton didn't believe that. In fact, he argued against it in Federalist 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent ..."
Which is why the second amendment says that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, not that a well armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.
"The idea behind a citizen’s militia was that every able-bodied adult male in the country was a part of it."
In 1788, the idea behind a citizen’s militia was that every able-bodied adult white male citizen in the country was a part of it. Which was less than 20% of the population at the time.
Not even close to "everyone".
And that's just his point #1. Posting the link large and blue doesn't make it right.
So the prohibition of laws respecting the establishment of a religion are also only Federal? Can a state restrain its press? Can a state permit quartering of soldiers in peacetime? Deny habeas corpus?
Been there. Done that. Not my fault if you can't read English.
Every single U.S. Supreme Court ruling, every federal Circuit Court ruling, every District Court ruling says it does not.
Lie. As proven. Emerson. Parker. About 30-40 others. That there are at least 2 Circuits on each side of the issue "individual" vs "collective" Right is more than enough proof of that. Not that I think you'll be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge this fact.
It does not mean that everything IN the constitution applies to the states -- if it did then the states can print money.
Actually, yes it does when specifically noted. As Art 6 Para 2 points out and the 10th specifically stipulates. Further, the legislation used to ratify the BoR specifically incorporates the BoR into the general Constitution making those clauses apply via Art 6 para 2.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it means by anyone.
"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 pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Not to mention the minorities that fought in the War for Independence. African Americans in the Revolutionary War...
Or are you a racist now, as well as a gun grabber, and will deny freedmen blacks their rightful place in history?
That is only true if there were no commas in the original text of the second amendment.
They were until the 1940's.
"Can a state restrain its press?"
Until the 1930's they could.
"Can a state permit quartering of soldiers in peacetime?"
Yes.
"Deny habeas corpus?"
They used to be able to until Congress passed 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the 60's.
It separates the prefatory clause from the operational clause. The operational clause stands alone without the prefatory, not the other way around. Ergo, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I tried taking away all the vowels. It made no sense whatsoever.
LOL
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.