Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard child of the litter. And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill. If any of our Constitutional Rights were trampled to the same extent that the exercise of Second Amendment Rights are daily disparaged and denied...the American Civil Liberties Union would suffer a collective panty-twist. In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace. Goldberg entered a Chili’s restaurant to pick up a takeout order on June 21. When he reached for his wallet to pay for the order a waitress spotted his legally owned and carried gun under his shirt and called the Glastonbury police. What happened next should frighten all Americans. As reported by the Hartford Courant, “Officers arrived and pushed Goldberg against the wall, while customers and wait staff watched. Goldberg, the soft-spoken son of a 30-year police veteran, said he calmly told the officers he had a permit to carry. They checked it out and found that he did. But because the waitress was alarmed he was arrested for breach of peace.” In true Gestapo style, Glastonbury Police Chief Thomas Sweeney had “...no problems with the officers' actions with regard to the incident,” And by the “always presumed guilty” treatment afforded legal gun owners, the state revoked Goldberg’s permit before his case even went to trial. Even though Goldberg’s arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its reinstitution. The Board has given him a hearing date of May 14, 2009. Thankfully this Board is being sued by one of its own members, M. Peter Kuck, secretary of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, for denying citizens their due process rights with regard to the denial of their Amendment II Rights. And another “alarmed” individual, Susan Mazzoccoli, executive director of the board, has responded to Kuck’s lawsuit in true totalitarian fashion...”We have tried to involve the governor's office to have him removed....” One can only imagine the national outcry if a poll worker became “alarmed” at the sight of a black man trying to cast his ballot and the police arrested that black man because he “alarmed” the female poll worker and then the state revoked his Fifteenth Amendment Right. Or better yet, in response to Malik Zulu Shabazz (head of the New Black Panthers) ranting “death to Israel...the white man is the devil...Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets” in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington, D.C...how about suspending the First Amendment rights of Black Muslims? I bet he “alarmed” a few people that day. But pooping on your Second Amendment Right is no big deal. For the sake of those needing a refresher course, Amendment II of the Constitution states that, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Not only does contemporary discussion of the Amendment go ludicrously out of its way to question the meaning of every word in Amendment II (including the placement of commas in the text), but it also questions the legitimacy of the Amendment. In every instance, the liberals toil in angst while trying to nullify the intent and simplicity of Amendment II. Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar believes that, “The amendment speaks of a right of ‘the people’ collectively rather than a right of ‘persons’ individually.” (as if there is a difference between some abstract group of “people” and individual citizens) Yet, there seems to be no problem with the word “people” when it comes to the sacred First Amendment. How can this be? How can “people” in Amendment I instantly become individual persons but “people” in Amendment II are argued not to be individuals? By making Amendment XIV a “living right”, Professor Amar justifies this dichotomy by arguing, “...given that a broad reading is a policy choice rather than a clear constitutional command, it must be functionally justified. And the mere fact that, say, the First Amendment has been read expansively is not an automatic argument for equal treatment for the Second.” Amar further argues that, “...other amendments have been read generously; why not the Second? The obvious functional idea that sticks and stones and guns...can indeed hurt others in ways that ...words cannot.” And to this argument, one might ask the simple question, “How many “persons” did Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels actually kill with a gun versus how many “people” did they kill with words?” Or ask about the 1932, German election that yielded a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag and made Hitler Chancellor of Germany. (You have to love that right to vote) Yet, liberals fight daily to restore the voting rights of convicted felons while simultaneously trying to nullify the Second Amendment Rights of the innocent. Sort of gives a whole new meaning to Black Sheep. |
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.