Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Correct. There were those who felt that way about all of the amendments, saying they weren't necessary since the federal government didn't have the power.
"Cute evasion. Answer the question."
What, you don't know the answer? The second amendment applied to the well regulated state militias. The Militia Act of 1792 merely standardized all of the militias.
Which handle(s) of yours got spanked by robertpaulsen?
So, again, what law school did you graduate from - or did you, which is more likely, flunk out?
How long have you been practicing law - or, more likely, flipping burgers?
You're going to ignore my posts until I answer your questions about my personal life that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Hah! Anything I want you to know about me can be found on my profile page.
Do you accept my challenge in post #176, or do you wish to apologize for besmirching me?
Finally.
And my next question is when will you make assistant manager at Burger King?
Or maybe you are the guy inside the King suit in the commercials...
Gosh, and I'm still able to wipe the floor with you.
Go figure.
No, you don’t wipe the floor with anyone on this thread, in fact, you get your arse handed to you every time you post.
Some things never change.
Do you have a target tattooed on your foot?
He'll cut and run.
Slippery slope there, Mr. Paulsen! Reason is a VERY subjective idea, and if given the opportunity, would you argue that the government would be comfortable allowing the citizenry to be armed for the purpose of a popular coup?
The Second Amendment is, in my mind, the Reset button against the Federal government. If citizens are fed up with their elected officials, there should be the option for us to overthrow them for their abuses. To think we could do that without armament is sheer folly.
Close. "A well armed regulated group of able-bodied individuals white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 45, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
I still feel that we are quibbling over the definition of regulated, Sir. How do you interpret the meaning of the word? I feel that you are taking it to mean controlled. Is that not the case? And you continue to place white, landowning males in the fray, seemingly to exclude other classes of people from the BoR altogether, but if the government and the courts since the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage were going to universally apply the declarations in the BoR, would they not have modified the core principles of governmental definitions to include women and blacks in that equation? More to the point, do you feel that the BoR still only applies to the white landowning men of this country from a strict constructionist view of the document?
And I apologize for the statewide or personal mixup. I re-read your previous post and realized that you were modifying the word defense. It made more sense after I figured that out.
... while yelling insults over his shoulder.
True. But the Founding Fathers were comfortable with it. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is required for convicton. "Secure from unreasonable searches" is found in the 4th amendment.
"would you argue that the government would be comfortable allowing the citizenry to be armed for the purpose of a popular coup?"
Well, if we can't do it today with 200 million guns owned by 70 million Americans, we ain't never going to be able.
"The Second Amendment is, in my mind, the Reset button against the Federal government. If citizens are fed up with their elected officials, there should be the option for us to overthrow them for their abuses."
There is. It's called the ballot box. Every two years we have the opportunity to start with a clean slate, electing the people who write the laws. We are a self-governing nation, you know.
"I feel that you are taking it to mean controlled. Is that not the case?"
That is not the case. I already answered that question from you in my post #137. Forget?
"More to the point, do you feel that the BoR still only applies to the white landowning men of this country from a strict constructionist view of the document?"
I referenced white, male, citizen landowners to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers did not mean to protect every individual's right to keep and bear arms by the second amendment -- that "the people" referred to a certain group, the enfranchised body politic.
That group, today, is much larger. The enfranchised body politic now includes non-whites and women. And it still does not mean every person or even every citizen.
And a national registry is, in my opinion, expressly forbidden per the Second Amendment. We are permitted to own firearms for the purpose of self defense and defense of the State, per the Second Amendment, and to track everyone's purchases and ownership of what amount to protected implements is tantamount to unreasonable search, at the least.
Well, if we can't do it today with 200 million guns owned by 70 million Americans, we ain't never going to be able.
That's not a cause for preclusion of the Second Amendment, Sir! The need for the Second Amendment transcends the need for revolution. As Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Just because it's been a while since a refresher doesn't mean we should be stripped of our right to do so!
There is. It's called the ballot box. Every two years we have the opportunity to start with a clean slate, electing the people who write the laws. We are a self-governing nation, you know.
Surely you jest, Sir! The ballot box is run by the candidates with the most money available to make their presence known. Politics in this country are no longer local and rural. They've taken on a sort of uber-national seed that has turned this country on its ear. With the national media taking over the airwaves, I would contend that politics go global to local instead of the converse, as it used to be. Our Congresscritters and Senators are locked in constant battle to retain their kushy lifestyles, and our local politicians are simply vying for primrose path to DC. We should get back to a pseudo-intellectual local discussion about issues instead of worrying about what Conservative talk show host is being censored now or what superbug is killing less than 2% of the US population.
That is not the case. I already answered that question from you in my post #137. Forget?
No sir, I didn't forget. I continue to bring that point forward to illustrate that you appear to mold it to your grammatical whim. I want to ensure that we're keep this dialog honest and open without attempting some lexical shenanigans. However, in post 137 you were marginally abusive, and I'd like to think that I've proven to you that I'm at least listening and attempting to have an intellectual conversation with you without being vituperative.
And finally, I think that your argument that every citizen of this fine nation isn't part of "the people" as laid out in the BoR is fatuous. If everyone in this nation followed your line of reasoning, we would have the Federal government doing everything they could to quash the rights of women and blacks with the BoR backing them up through some legal monkey business. Every man and woman, white, black, Asian or Mexican, short or tall, fat or skinny who is a citizen of this country is permitted the right to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of private property and most of all the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of lawful self-defense of self and State. If you'd like to contend otherwise, I believe there is a movement to have the Second Amendment stricken from the BoR. While your at it, have them strip out the Third as well. Who needs the quartering act anymore, anyway?
Shut your pie hole Roscoe. Last thing we need is a re-tread troll chiming in....
If you had read the quote before posting it you wouldn't be so hysterical now.
Cite, please.
If you bothered to acknowledge my posts on any of the last hundred threads you’ve polluted with your mindless trolling, we wouldn’t be having this exchange at all...
3. The limited powers of the federal government and jealousy of the subordinate governments afford a security which exists in no other instance. Answer. The first member of this seems resolvable into the 1st. objection before stated. The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text whereby they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this view it is necessary to the federal government also: as by the same text they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments.
BoR. Check on ANY government in the US from over stepping the boundries. Go cry in your beer...
You're afraid to even try to refute your own self-inflicted wound of a post?
That's sad.
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.