Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine
Why would it be necessary to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment in order to more clearly spell out what our rights are with regard to firearms? That is why I do not trust this fellow.
I'm with you kid. Steves silence since his initial reply, his inability to defend his position, makes evident his sites basic agenda. He supports changing some of our Constitutions principles.
I am not against adding an amendment to the Constitution to list what exactly the government is and is not allowed to regulate (if, of course, it was generous to gun rights). In fact, it would probably be good for our country if the rules were clearer.
I think it should take the form of two sets of rules:
what the fedgov/local governments are allowed to regulate and what only local governments are allowed to regulate (with everything else held as a right of the people that cannot be infringed by any government).
There would be some risk inherent in this (what if we lost the political fight and anti-gunners got to change the Constitution?) but if we succeeded, it would have the benefit of securing near-permanently a core subset of gun rights (the most important stuff). The more controversial rights would have to be won at the ballot box, but it would be a better situation than we have today, because anti-gunners would know their limits.
I couldn't support such an Amendment, sorry. I think the Constitution is quite clear as to individual rights, and the inability of ANY level of government to infringe upon them. -- We the people only lack the political will to demand compliance.
No they were not. The First Amendment was specifically crafted to protect state churches from the threat of a national church.
The Establishment Clause does not purport to protect individual rights...This textual analysis is consistent with the prevailing view that the Constitution left religion to the States. History also supports this understanding: At the founding, at least six States had established religions, Nor has this federalism point escaped the notice of Members of this Court. Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision--it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right...
But even assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right...
It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion. (noting that "the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow absorbed the Establishment Clause, although it is not without irony that a constitutional provision evidently designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy")...
As strange as it sounds, an incorporated Establishment Clause prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected--state practices that pertain to "an establishment of religion." - THOMAS, concurring
Yep, and using the same arguments, "the Constitution should not be interpreted to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the states."
No, because as you pointed out in post 29 the First amendment says Congress shall make no law whereas the second amendment refers to the rights of the people which are of course, God-given and inalienable.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound spouting off about "statism" to a bunch of federalists when your own argument is so intensely nationalist?
Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in.
Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments.
No they were not. The First Amendment was specifically crafted to protect state churches from the threat of a national church.
Yep that's more or less what Justice Thomas writes, here:
"I accept that the Free Exercise Clause, which clearly protects an individual right, applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the Establishment Clause is another matter.
The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments.
Thus, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, which does protect an individual right, it makes little sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause."
However, - Thomas's point makes litte difference to the States 'rights' issue.
He admits just above that the rest of our BOR's applies to State/Local governments.
_____________________________________
At #52, I wrote;
Today, the State of CA claims it can prohibit 'assault weapons'. Do you agree?
'Cal' replied:
A strong argument can be made that, even after the 14th Amendment, the Constitution should not be interepreted to incorporate the 1st Amendment and apply it to the states.
Yep, and using the same argument, -- "the Constitution should not be interpreted to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the states." --
-- Do you approve, 'CalRepublican'?
'Joe' replies:
No, because as you pointed out in post 29 the First amendment says Congress shall make no law whereas the second amendment refers to the rights of the people which are of course, God-given and inalienable.
Reread the Thomas quote just above joe. -- He agrees that except for 'establishment', the rest of the First applies to State/Local governments.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound spouting off about "statism" to a bunch of federalists when your own argument is so intensely nationalist?
My arguments defend our Constitution, not a "nationalist" view. -- And you clowns are a bunch of 'States Rights' zealots, not federalists.
He agrees that except for 'establishment', the rest of the First applies to State/Local governments.
Exactly so. Thus the establishment clause does not restrict the powers of the states, while the rest of the BOR, including the second amendment, does.
Hillary Clinton would be very proud of your tyrannical nationalism.
And you clowns are a bunch of 'States Rights' zealots, not federalists.
You liberaltarians are a bunch of terrorist-loving anarchist dope-fiends.
I am quite willing to accept reasonable restrictions on my ownership and use of fireams.
Of course, "reasonable" means limited by my ability to afford to purchase. I do not, and will not accept any left-wing lunatic fringe definition of "reasonable".
FMCDH
Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in. --- These 'state churches' existed from Colonial days.
However, the fact that Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments proves my point.
New 'establishments' were NOT to be part of a "Republican Form of Government", guaranteed to every State by Art. IV.
No they were not. The First Amendment was specifically crafted to protect state churches from the threat of a national church.
Yep that's more or less what Justice Thomas writes, here:
" The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."
By using the term "grandfathered" you are suggesting that these churches were allowed to operate with the states' blessings despite the fact that the constitution forbade them to do so, only because they so operated before the Constitution and were "grandfathered in."
Not so.
You are simply denying historical fact. -- Feel free to do so, but it makes your position look foolish.
Hillary Clinton would be very proud of your tyrannical nationalism. You liberaltarians are a bunch of terrorist-loving anarchist dope-fiends.
Whatever. Such silly comments belong in the backroom.
Your motivation is your ignorant and bigoted hatred of decent, moral, religious Americans.
Yep that's more or less what Justice Thomas writes, here:
" The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."
I agree with his assessment.
By using the term "grandfathered" you are suggesting that these churches were allowed to operate with the states' blessings despite the fact that the constitution forbade them to do so, only because they so operated before the Constitution and were "grandfathered in."
Yes, I agree.
Not so.
You are simply denying historical fact. -- Feel free to do so, but it makes your position look foolish.
You are the one denying the historical and legal fact that the Establishment clause did not outlaw state churches, but did precisely the opposite.
They weren't "outlawed". The establishment clause was a political compromise that worked.. -- State churches no longer exist. -- They died out because of sheer apathy, imo..
-- Utah's statehood fight proves that such establishments were seen to violate our guarantee to have a Republican Form of Government in every State.
Your motivation is your ignorant and bigoted hatred of decent, moral, religious Americans. Hillary Clinton would be very proud of your tyrannical nationalism. You liberaltarians are a bunch of terrorist-loving anarchist dope-fiends.
Whatever. Such ignorant & hateful comments belong in the backroom.
State churches died out because bigots like you distorted the Constitution in order to oppress the members of a religion they didn't like.
The reason the Founders wanted a well armed militia was not only to serve as a force against an invading army but also as a check against the potential tyranny of its own government. The Founders had just thrown off the shackles of what they thought was an oppressive government with a standing army (Britain). A well armed citizenry was to serve as the nation's fighting force, but also as a balance to its own government.
With todays standing armies and the power of the federal government, a well armed citizenry is needed now more than ever.
Joe, just like your namesake, you've lost control of your emotions.
Have you no shame sir?
You are dismissed. Get lost.
McCarthy was right and Thomas Paine was a anti-Christian bigot.
Whatta demented clown you are Joe..
I'm not the real Tom, and I'm not anti-Christian. Run along now.. You've been dismissed.
I was just going to supply that history lesson, also. Thanks.
I remember in a 3rd year law school class, a prof thought he caught me daydreaming and asked a loaded question (A Real Estate Transactions class, I think) which I answered by correctly describing what you described in your post, which caused the class to giggle because 1. the prof looked like an idiot as I was not unprepared as he thought, and 2. it was clear from the looks on the faces of most of my classmates that they didn't understand the nature of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment vis a vis the states.
One of my many fun and funny law school memories!
Oh, mercy me! Those kind of hateful comments belong in the back room! </wussy
robertpaulsen wrote:
--- you still feel that we should organize, arm, and form a citizens militia? To fight ... who?
______________________________________
Enemies, -- domestic?
Our enemy within becomes ever more bold paulsen, as we see by exposing sites like this one, and you all, -- who support them.
24 tpaine
______________________________________
So, we need to organize, and arm, a citizens state militia to combat these domestic enemies? Just so I know where to aim my gun, could you point out one of them?
I don't know what's more appropriate for you -- my Reynold's Wrap picture or my Black Helicopter Crowd picture.
26 -paulsen-
_____________________________________
bat1816 wrote:
With todays standing armies and the power of the federal government, a well armed citizenry is needed now more than ever.
______________________________________
As you see, paulsen doesn't care to respond to reason.
His whole purpose here at FR is to run down our Constitutional rule of law while puffing himself up.
Are you saying that the states need to form, and arm, organized state civilian militias? And once organized, armed, and trained, what are their orders?
Or, should we focus on ensuring that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms?
The same way the USSC ruling on nude dancing made state laws against it less secure. All it takes is one lawsuit to overturn state laws. Which there were.
And there are plenty of gun grabbers out there with beau coup funding to challenge state handgun laws, knowing in advance that they have the green light from the USSC.
State handgun laws would topple like dominoes.
Today, the State of CA claims it can prohibit 'assault weapons'. Do you agree?
A strong argument can be made that, even after the 14th Amendment, the Constitution should not be interepreted to incorporate the 1st Amendment and apply it to the states.
Yep, and using the same arguments, -- "the Constitution should not be interpreted to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the states." --
Do you approve, 'CalRepublican'?
52
Amazingly, Cal did approve, admitting that Ca can prohibit 'assault weapons' in his view.
Do you think the same way 'Hitman'? Is our 2nd amendment infringeable by States like CA?
Is there some connection to my post, or are you starting a new topic?
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.