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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
Try reading the WHOLE thing. Or will you now try your pathetic selective editing games again?
Try finding anything in your own post supportive of your obsession for centralized government. Piling it up doesn’t give it merit.
You are not only stupid, but you've got one screwed up agenda...
How does lying about the Constitution and federalism advance that goal?
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.
So the Bill of Rights, in Jefferson's view, provided the federal government a measure by which it could resist state oppposition to the exercise of federal powers.
Poor you.
You've got one screwed up agenda...
Me, a few thousand other FReepers, and the Founders against Roscoe and Bobby...
I'd say you are well and truly f*cked...
An emanation of a penumbra?
Poor you.
Fact is, I could walk into my local gun shop tomorrow with $10,000 and go on a shopping spree. It may raise the eyebrows of the local LEOs if I walk out of a gun shop with 60 AK47s, but there's absolutely no law in the State of Florida to prohibit me from doing so. Additionally, I could stockpile 7.62x32 ammunition for said AK47s, and again, no one could stop me from doing so. To request a citation for something that is irrefutable is somewhat confounding to me. Would you like me to attempt to do this as a citation, perhaps?
If that's the entire scope of your position, I have no problem with it.
No, I won't. I have already, over this thread and previous threads, refuted his arguments. He ignores those posts and continues to demand that I refute his arguments. My lack of response to that post, other than to point him to our arguments over the years, which I've won, is not cutting and running. I'm tired of his games.
Which is the reason for my tounge-in-cheek post to him which you derided.
He can take his 'challenge' and shove it up his @ss if it will fit there alongside his head.
You can STFU too.
He is mis-stating what the nature of the rulings are, intentionally. We've had this argument before as well, yet he fails to acknowledge basic constitutional principles. Imagine that.
The standard of review of a law seeking to regulate an individual right changes depending upon the nature of right.
Fundamental rights require strict scrutiny, which means the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
Other levels of individual right are analyzed using the rational basis test.
Anyone with any intellectual honesty, who reads Emerson and the scholarly work it is based on, will acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right - and 90% of the gun laws won't pass strict scrutiny since they largely affect us and not criminals.
If you want a good explanation of the standards of review read Griswold, Roe, and Casey.
No, retard, the first nine give individual's standing and a yardstick to challenge federal law, and as each was incorporated under the 14th amendment, state law.
The 10th amendment, you know the one that reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
is the only one that allows a State to challenge a federal law.
again, STFU.
You did, Bill.
And the explicit expression of the federal limitations in the Bill of Rights has acted as a standard to which the courts have adhered, limitating open-ended interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and challenges to federal powers. Tenth Amendment decisions limiting federal powers are almost as rare as a cogent argument from Abundy.
A real lawyer would know that.
Yes, and the average number of guns per American gun owner is 4. Now, how is one-gun-a-month not a reasonable restriction?
Or are you starting a different argument -- that our gun laws don't work? You're kind of confusing me here.
"If I were to buy 3 AK-47s in one day, I have that right, and no one should question it."
Oh, please. What percentage of American gun buyers does that describe? .00001%. Maybe? You can't spread that out over three months? Now who's being "unreasonable"?
"and to track everyone's purchases and ownership of what amount to protected implements is tantamount to unreasonable search, at the least."
No different than vehicle registration, or licensing pilots, doctors, truck drivers, etc. I think a warrant should be required to search the database for a particular serial number, however.
"Just because it's been a while since a refresher doesn't mean we should be stripped of our right to do so!"
Stripped how? I pointed out that 70 million Americans already have 200 million guns. That's not enough for your revolution?
"The ballot box is run by the candidates with the most money available to make their presence known."
So voting is a waste of time and an armed revolution is the way to go, huh? What is this, Uganda?
Why did the federal AWB expire? You think Sarah Brady simply changed her mind? You think Congress was lazy? Tell me why YOU think it expired.
"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 keep and bear arms for the purpose of lawful self-defense of self and State."
Well, at least you didn't say "every person", so there's some hope for you. But every citizen? Hmmmm. The insane? The feeble-minded? Children? Prisoners? Felons?
And if the second amendment protects this right, then doesn't Due Process or Equal Protection mean that every state must have the same laws? Why do somes states allow concealed carry and some don't?
"I continue to bring that point forward to illustrate that you appear to mold it to your grammatical whim."
Then I can expect it to stop, now that you know exactly what I mean by it.
"I believe there is a movement to have the Second Amendment stricken from the BoR. While your at it ..."
While I'm "at it"? What makes you think I'm part of that movement?
You said, "... the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right" which "require strict scrutiny, which means the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest".
And I said, "Congress may write laws which "reasonably regulate" a constitutional right provided there is a compelling government interest."
Please explain the difference and how I'm "mis-stating what the nature of the rulings are".
I'm thinking he's Abundy.
Averaging in this discussion seems contemptible, Sir, as we are discussing the rights of the people at-large. I personally own over 40 firearms, many of which I've purchased over the last 5 years and a small percentage of which were willed to me by several relatives.
And yes, I am absolutely arguing that our guns laws don't work. We shouldn't have gun laws to begin with, in my opinion. The 1934 Federal taxation of an entire class of firearms was predicated on a lie, and because some twit of a lawyer decided not to show up to Miller, the judge threw out the case with predjudice.
Fact is that thousands of men had returned from WWI with full auto selective fire weapons and kept them in their basements and attics as relics of their time in the trenches.
Our boys went over to the European theater and brought back the same, and no one was the wiser. Because some gin-stilling hillbilly had a sawed-off shotgun in his truck and an overzealous FBI agent decided to haul him into court on the recently-enacted law, we now have to pay a $200 tax on a firearm that is no more lethal than its semi-auto cousin. That is, in my opinion, a perversion of justice, and it's not preventing anyone with the means to purchase one from doing so.
Additionally, there are major metropolitan areas in this country with skyrocketing violent crime and yet they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. We could have another 200-thread discussion on this talking point, but I think it would be dishonest for anyone to argue that allowing the law-abiding of this country to arm themselves for protection of self and State is a bad idea.
It all comes down to power, Sir. We continue to go around and around about this, but the simplest fact of all of this is that the Founding Fathers distrusted the absolute power of an overbearing federal government. They came to these shores to get away from a nanny-state oligarchy. To say that they were divesting the populace of this country (the entire populace, not just one class of citizens) of their right to protect themselves and their governing-by-the-people interests is unscrupulous!
Oh, please. What percentage of American gun buyers does that describe? .00001%. Maybe? You can't spread that out over three months? Now who's being "unreasonable"?
Actually, Sir, I believe you are the one being unreasonable. I know at least a dozen (yes, 12) people who are or have been just exactly like that. We will go to gun shows in the Southeast and buy up curios and relics to refurbish and re-sell or even to add to our own collections. This is not unreasonable, and again, we're not prevented from doing it, nor should we be! You are, again, arguing to preclude the few who practice exactly this from the many who may only buy one firearm per year. Just because people don't do it, doesn't mean they should be barred from doing so! You argued for the same preclusion in Post #213.
No different than vehicle registration, or licensing pilots, doctors, truck drivers, etc. I think a warrant should be required to search the database for a particular serial number, however.
Driving a vehicle is not a constitutionally guaranteed idea, Sir. Flying a plane, driving a truck and practicing medicine are not written anywhere in the Bill Of Rights as an inalienable Right. If you would be comfortable being tracked in your every movement and your every purchase being cataloged, I know a few million Americans who would have a bone to pick with you. England has a nice civilian surveillance program, I've heard.
Stripped how? I pointed out that 70 million Americans already have 200 million guns. That's not enough for your revolution?
Ah, now it's personal. My revolution, Sir? I'd argue that 50% of this country is fed up with the Federal bureaucracy and bloat. The problem is that we have grown comfortable and complacent in our cozy little cottages of nothingness while the Federal government continues to foster their power-hungry wants. A bloodless coup at the ballot box could be attained, but unfortunately there's about 150 million Americans who are comfortable voting for a name (again, because some names have more money than others) rather than an idea. We have become lazy and subjects to the talking points of the mass media in control of content distribution in the world. If more people spent the time to take part in the intellectual discourse available to them in forums such as this, perhaps the seed of liberty, true liberty, could be sown in the minds of people who really are fed up with governmental protraction but just don't know it yet. Voting is absolutely the way to get things done, Sir, but do you honestly feel that your vote counts for anything anymore? There's always some talk of "voting irregularities" when one side doesn't get their way or lose by a razor-thin margin.
Why did the federal AWB expire? You think Sarah Brady simply changed her mind? You think Congress was lazy? Tell me why YOU think it expired.
Not sure how we got to this cog in the wheel, but since you asked: I believe the AWB expired because the Legislators actually realized it didn't do a damn thing to curb crime. I mean, c'mon RP! If you read the AWB, it was replete with completely nonobjective classifications for weapons. If they wanted to do away with large classes of weapons, they should ban ammunition calibers, not firearms that "look dangerous." Passing that law, in my mind, was a complete perversion of law in this country, and as it were, they barely passed it when it was up for the final vote! They had to put the sunset clause in it to get those final few Pubbies to cross the aisle for passage. Even under the watchful eye of a Democrat legislative branch, people were hard-pressed to pass a law that was so obviously seditious. Regardless of what party was in office at the sunset of that bill, it failed to be reconstituted because it was a failure as legislation and did absolutely nothing to curb violent crime in this country in any way.
And again you're discussing the infirm and mentally challenged as potential gun owners, and yes, I am contending they are protected by the BoR just as well and you or me. However, you're throwing out the presumption of innocence with regards to some of those people in that sliver of society. I'm not advocating the arming of violent felons or the mentally unstable, but until they are convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally defective, they are afforded the right to walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm just as well as anyone else. After indictment or mental incarceration, strip them of that right, absolutely.
Why do some states allow concealed carry and others don't? Mr. Paulsen... surely you jest? You've been the one promoting the States-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would just assume let your interpretation speak to your question, but I would state that, as you've said before, the States have the right to place into their constitutions the rights to utilize a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. It's the business of that state how they wish to control their people. I live in a state with very purposeful laws concerning firearm usage, thank God. The business of the state of California, New York, New Jersey, etc. is their business and their business alone. I would never live there, so I don't believe it affects me one iota.
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.