Posted on 04/21/2009 2:09:32 PM PDT by neverdem
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say a word about “home protection”. It doesn’t make a distinction between “home” and “away from home”. It says The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. It doesn’t say the right may be infringed a little bit, or by a federal court, or by local laws.
All the famous dictators in history have forbid their people from having their own weapons. Most of these dictators have been socialists: 1) Lenin, Stalin and their successors in the USSR; 2) Mao in China; 3) Hitler and his National Socialist Party in Germany; 4) Kim in North Korea; 5) Castro in Cuba; and (6) Saddam Hussein (Baathist Party modeled after the Nazis) in Iraq.
Those who would take away our right under the Second Amendment are “suspects” - they want to undermine freedom and destroy the United States.
Ping
The fight does not stop there. It fight goes on. Next....Chicago.
JoMa
I think they mean that the States cannot now violate the rights of individuals. I’ve had a BIG problem with this logic for a long time.
Many people argue the 2nd Amendment protects people from laws passed by the Federal government, and not the States. In othe words, the Federal government can’t ban your guns, but the State governments can if they want to.
Baloney. But this is what too many people believe.
Such an argument would mean that when the framers wrote the 1st amendment, they intended that no Federal law could establish a religion upon you, but that the States could.
Baloney.
Or that the 13th amendment prevented the Federal government from enslaving people, but the states were still free to do so.
Baloney.
The fact is, the Federal Constitution lists individual rights that government cannot violat — either federal, state or local. In fact, this was true even before the 14th amendment was passed. Judicial activism has simply turned the intention of the framers on their head and in so doing, claim that the 14th Amendment is the only link between the Federal Constitution and the liberties it protects by individuals in the separate states.
Hogwash.
But to answer your question again, the 9th Circuit ruled that the 14th Amendment means, not only can the Federal government not restrict your 2nd Amendment rights, but State and local governments can’t violate your 2nd Amendment rights.
Even as a misinterpretation, it is a victory, and I’LL TAKE IT! It is the best we are going to get in the current climate where the 10th Amendment has been constantly raped while the portion of ignorant, immoral voters has grown large enough to elect an islamic, America-hating, dictatorial communist stooge like Obama.
NOTE: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
Let me know when the lazy do nothing goa ever does a single thing then that will be the day pigs fly.
goa = AWOL
The Ninth Circuit Court did this?
Hell has just frozen over.
I am endowed, by the Creator, of certain, unalienable rights, as are you.
The bill of rights, and in this case the 2A, simply re-affirms those aformentioned, pre-existing, rights.
Further, I would hold these rights to be self evident, and exercised so, regardless of what tyrannical government espouses.
Further still, I would hold these rights to be self evident even if they would argue against a creator.
could it be a prelude to implementing foreign gun ban treaties ?
Actually, I think it is very, very good. This focus on the "home" could allow the Supreme Court not only to rule on incorporation, but also to take an initial stab at "bear" as in "keep and bear".
The Supreme Court should find that it is ludicrous to expect that counties, many of which hold title to public roadways, can pass a blanket prohibition against bearing arms on such roadways.
Why bother having states when we can have centralized judicial control of local policy issues?
Yep, it’s a real crap shoot.
Why bother having a federal government if your state is free to enslave you in any way they see fit?
You don't like the laws of a particular state, you can move. Lovers of centralized power hate that.
Well raise my rent.
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.