Posted on 10/27/2011 6:58:16 AM PDT by marktwain
You asked what my point was. My comments are about defending ourselves.
Anything that supports the exercise of any of those three.
But I think you already knew that.
No, you seem to think that the SCOTUS is God like and infallible.
Some of us can think on our own and make up their own minds what is and isn't a correct SCOTUS ruling.
Why are decisions ALWAYS split when they're handed down?
How do I "like" it? I don't understand.
Figures, you obviously don't understand the 10th either as I posted to you earlier.
Well. That's certainly an interesting interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Juvenile, but interesting.
Where is it oh wise one in the Constitution that justifies Kelo?
Since the Founders were against a standing army, they were hoping state militias would be able to do the job. (The War of 1812 demonstrated how wrong they were).
In addition, state militias would prevent the federal government from acquiring power by force. The second amendment was to ensure that state militias were not disarmed by federal action.
Individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions -- which is why gun laws vary from state to state. At least, that's the way I read it.
No, he was merely pointing out that just because the Supreme Court “says so”, doesn’t make right.
The short form:
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
An equipped and trained individual being necessary to the security of his 1/300,000,000th part of a free State, the right of an individual to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
Seems most forget a citizen is a component of the nation, not a separate entity subject thereto.
I never said Kelo was justified. Only that it's the law of the land.
Kelo was wrong on many levels. It was based on the takings clause of the fifth amendment. In my opinion, the takings clause of the fifth amendment does not apply to the states, just as the Grand Jury clause of the fifth amendment does not apply to the states.
The U.S. Supreme Court, therefore, should not have heard this case. Rather, the decision should have been left to the Connecticut Supreme Court based on the Connecticut state constitution.
Ah, so YOU disagree with SCOTUS on this one too.
How juvenile!
They might as easily defend their neighborhood, town or state.
If they're leaderless and acting in concert for individual gain, that's nothing more than an armed mob.
I imagine the King saw the minutemen as an armed mob.
Well, see? This is where I'm confused.
If the second amendment protected everyone's right to own a gun, then why say, "Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia". Not everyone was in the militia or even allowed to be part of the militia.
Those three, are the only inalienable rights that men have?
Everything else pretty-much boils down to a variation on one of those three.
But then, you probably already knew that, didn’t you?
Who said "Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia"?
Yeah, looks like RP is back. Not the first time he has returned since his zotting. Same argumentative style (prolific impassioned nit-picking and almost-but-not-quite zottable ad-hominems), same skewed sociopolitical philosophy (overall conservative, but with a fondness for utter subversion of the Founding Fathers), same fondness for pseudonyms (tragic anarchistic antihero movie protagonists). If he’s back, he’s gotta go.
See post #38.
I do recall robertpaulsen (even the all-lowercase and no spaces pseudonym is the same) very well. He talks like a Conservative, but then viciously argues over some small point, eviscerating the Founding Fathers’ point. mrwhite is obviously robertpaulsen; I spent far too much time arguing with him and recommend you refrain lest you drive yourself mad - he can only be silenced, not corrected, and will destroy one thread after another until he is banned.
Wow. Wouldn't it be much more effective to demonstrate just how wrong he is by posting logical arguments based on fact and reason, backed up with court cases and linked articles?
Or is hiding behind an admin's skirt more the style here?
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.