Posted on 09/10/2005 7:02:27 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
You sir are simply incorrect in your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. Please take some time and do some further research. It is imperative that we retain the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Wow! AN ARSEMAL!
Militia = Right Wing Fanatics
Las Vegas on the Mississippi. A French Quarter Theme Park!
Two barges full of dyno-mite acc. to Dick Gregory.
LOL...
As I read it, the 2nd Amendment alludes to the state militia. One can infer an individual right,
Infer? The recent Justice Dept report overwhelmingly proved that our RKBA's is an individual right.
but it would be hard to enforce against a state government.
State government officials are all sworn to support the US Constitution and its Amendments as the Law of the Land. It is not 'hard' to enforce that oath.
At 108 you comment:
That is the way that the Supreme Court read it seventy years ago. Argue your ideology all you want. But until you can make your case before the Supreme Court, it is just academic.
The USSC in Miller did not 'read it your way'. They agreed that we the people have an individual right to keep militia type weapons.
Your own anti- gun states rights ideology is evident at 109, where you claim:
The salient term is "the States" as political entities, distinct from the United States.
You want the 14th Amendment to extend to restrict the states as they now restrict their police power in the area of morals?
States have always been restricted by the Constitutions supremacy as the law of the land. They cannot use their police powers to infringe on individual rights.
I mean how is the claimed right to be enforced? Against whom?
Individual rights are to be protected from local, state or federal infringements by our constitutional rule of law, due process, & trial by jury. -- How else would you have it?
______________________________________
I posted the above some time ago. Apparently you intend to ignore my comments.
Now you're claiming that:
[the constitution's] -- primary purpose is to set up a governor and define its powers.
Wrong. Our Constitutions preamble outlines its primary purposes. Try reading it.
It is left to officers and other officals to interpret.
Not so. They are bound to support it as written. And it was written in the ordinary english of its day, still understandable to ordinary people.
Any guarantee of individual rights will be by that government.
That is their duty, true enough. But above you're claiming that States have no such duty when it comes to our individual right to bear arms. Why is that?
You claim the right of rebellion. Not many governments are willing to acknowledge that claim.
Of course 'they' don't. One of our jobs as citizens is to make sure they remember who is boss. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
My position is that the 2nd amendment limits the national government, just as the first one does. It does not noe was it intended to limit the states, unless oyu wish the High Court to apply the 14th amendment to them as it has, say, the first amendment.
And my replies to your positions were posted above, and remain unrefuted. It's becoming obvious you really can't argue those points.
That is assuming that you are among those who think that the right to have a personal weapon deserves greater protection than the right to a free exercise of religion or the right of free speech.
Wrong 'assumption'. All of our inalienable rights must be honored by all of our levels of government.
None of these in the context of our municipal law is an absolute right but a relative one.
Where do you get these odd ideas that muni law can declare some of our rights "relative"? Relative to what? -- The will of the majority?
Freedom of opinion is absolute so long as it is not voiced.
BS. - If you cannot voice an opinion, you have no freedom to do so. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not an opinion, it's a dangerous act.
Freedom to have a personal weapon is absolute so long as the gun is plugged.
Plugged? What is a "plugged' weapon?
-- Really robby, you should consider educating yourself on our Constitution, and on arms, before you spout off further on either subject.
I am waiting for the books/movies to start coming out.
If you want to write a book , or make a movie about a conspiracy, first you have to create a conspiracy in the publics psyche. Now the seeds have been planted and the roots are taking hold.
I wonder what angle Michael Moore will take in his new movie?
Oh, probably something along the lines of... Gun Totin', Racist, Redneck, Right Wing, Vigalanties shooting N******'s for Sport. Gotta get all the stereotypes ya can in there.
That's the way the law clerks who wrote the syllabus read it, but that's not what the Supreme Court actually wrote.
According to the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects weapons of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia. Miller and Layton were never convicted of possessing a short shotgun; the Supreme Court held that the government could go to trial and argue/present evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was not suitable, while Miller/Layton would present evidence that it was. Although Miller was dead by that time (killed in a gunfight, armed with a .45--maybe if he'd had a sawed off shotgun he'd have still been alive) Layton was still alive. For some reason, though, rather than bring his case to trial the government offered him a plea bargain for time served.
Can you think of any other case where the government has offered a plea bargain after "winning"?
The right extends absolutely to all free persons. Note that the government is allowed to turn convicts into slaves (see Amendment XIII).
The Constitution is an instruction manual to let the people know how their government is supposed to work. It is designed, in part, to help people determine when they should assist government in taking arms against criminals, and when they should assist citizens in taking arms against lawless government personnel.
Already saw that on DU. Castizing the whites as being able to play "survivor" while the black looters were starving, and then many agreed they wouldn't be surprised if all the rapes were committed by wealthy white men since they had the "entitlement" feeling.
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.