Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
Legal rights aren't legal rights because you say so.
Nope, it's an absurdity, just like the last several times you sourcelessly asserted it.
Backwards. But what else is new?
Yeah... Whatever.
And the power of the sword predates the 2nd Amendment. Tench wasn't as dim as you.
The Second protects our RKBA. From a-holes like you...
Against federal infringement, to the despair of central government cheerleaders and Constitution haters such as yourself.
Still having issues reading Art6 para 2 as well I see.
Infringement by any level of government is "infringement".
Moron.
Backwards. You still haven't found that "by the states" in the FEDERAL Constitution.
As the Supreme Court noted:
If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power, words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.But an inability to support your assertions or to make reasoned arguments has never been a barrier to you.
There you go with your Leftist appeal to judicial activism again...
I forgot. You think that original intent is “judicial activism.” Your hatred of our Constitution produces such depraved thinking.
You lose again...
“Laws of any State” aren’t contrary to restrictions on federal power. But you love being slapped down on that point repeatedly, so who am I to refuse you?
Still haven't given up on your State level gun bans have you...
You've sourcelessly and endlessly begged.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.
Your hatred of our Constitution and of original intent is grounded solely in your own willful ignorance.
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.- Willaim Rawle
There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law.- George Mason
Take your idiotic Leftist court arguments and stuff 'em...
And none of the quotes say that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on state powers. But when you've got nothing, you bluff, just as you always have.
And as the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in the earliset days of our Republic:
Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.What a stark contrast such language has measured against your sourceless and disingenuous begging.
Yer' still wrong...
Of course you did. You aren't here for anything other than trolling.
Two lies in just three words. Impressive.
You haven’t been correct yet. Why start now?
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.