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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
You insist on putting words in my mouth to make your arguments. First it was "my" definition of regulate which you totally made up. Now it's "the infirm and mentally challenged"? Where did I say that? Get your $hit together or we are done on this thread. I WILL NOT be misquoted by you or anyone else on this forum. Do we understand each other?
I said the insane and the feeble-minded. Do you believe the insane and the feeble-minded should have the right to keep and bear arms?
"You've been the one promoting the States-right interpretation of the Second Amendment."
More correctly, I have been the one saying the second amendment is a limitation on only the federal government, which is why state gun laws vary. I didn't know you agreed with that.
"The business of the state of California, New York, New Jersey, etc. is their business and their business alone."
Exactly.
And if the citizens of those states wish to limit gun purchases to one/month, that is also their concern, not yours or mine. I don't understand why you're bitchin' about it.
I was not deliberately trying to misquote you, Sir, and I apologize if you feel I was doing so. Everyone's so defensive on this thread, but I was attempting to group your subclasses into a larger class of people (the infirm and mentally challenged). Nonetheless, my beliefs as previously stated could be extended to your subclasses (the insane and feeble-minded) as well. Presumption of innocence. If they're adjudicated mentally defective, ban them outright.
I'm not bitching about States rights. I'm bitching about your interpretation of the Second Amendment, but it seems that this discussion has gotten so long in the tooth that I am beginning to become myopic in my talking points. The Federal government should not make any law abridging the free use of firearms by the people. If the States wish to bar their citizens, its the problem of those respective States if the excrement hits the rotator, among other things.
Yes. And "reasonable" has been defined by the court as a) a compelling governmental interest, b) narrowly tailored, and c) the least restrictive means.
Now, why is it necesary for me to go into that level of detail to address the issue? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may reasonably regulate a constitutional right. Period. I'm correct in saying that and I am not misstating or implying anything.
Please describe “Militia-type arms” for me.
The federal government got involved at the behest of the states. It was impossible for the individual states to regulate, say, machine guns. Just as it was impossible for the states to regulate booze. Booze led to Prohibition. Machine guns led to the National Firearms Act.
If a state law would be effective at regulating a certain activity, whether it be guns or booze or drugs or porn or whatever, yes, I'd prefer it be handled that way. But if it's going to be pointless to do so, why do it?
"but I was attempting to group your subclasses into a larger class of people (the infirm and mentally challenged)."
You are free to do so. Just don't attribute that to me. Again, you use your words, I'll use mine.
It's an abbreviation we've been using on these gun threads for a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense".
You may recognize the description from US v Miller.
Thank you for your post #69. I have never seen this explained so well before in my life.
glock rocks;carry okie;czar;peterbilt
ping to post #69
So are you meaning machine guns, howitzers, tanks but excluding hand held weapons?
'tis a distinction with little difference.
There are weapons featuring various factors which soldiers prefer over others because, as tools, they do a particular job more efficiently. A double-barreled shotgun, loaded with fine birdshot, optimized for sporting clays, is hardly suitable for modern warfare due to slow reloads, low capacity, short range and trivial penetration. Most soldiers are now issued an M4, with high-capacity rapid-reload magazines, semi- and full-auto modes, 600m range, armor penetration and catastrophic fragmentation on impact - far more efficient for killing those trying to kill you.
Yes, some weapons are more suitable for military use than others. Some are standard issue, some are of dubious or specialized use, and some would be deemed "that would get you killed".
This, however, gets twisted by gun-control types. Fact is that ANY weapon can be used for military purpose in a pinch, and to prohibit some categories for insuitability belies an intent to advance unconstitutional prohibitions thru any means available. The category you refer to was created, like so many other terms, solely to invent a distinction for the purpose of demonizing it (or anything outside it). The 2nd Amendment does not recognize or authorize any limitation on arms owned by citizens, be it muzzleloader or howitzer, and thus allows the population to acquire "standard/common" arms relevant to reasonable needs and expectations; this in contrast to allowing the government to prohibit weapons and thus unnaturally limit what is fitting for the security of a free state.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller, yes. Meaning the federal government cannot prohit the use of those weapons by members of a Militia.
The second amendment has nothing to do with "allowing the government to prohibit weapons". The second amendment protects from federal infringement. If some weapon is not protected or if some individual's right is not protected, that doesn't allow the government to prohibit. Where do you get that?
The federal government cannot prohibit something unless it was given the power to prohibit by the states.
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
In 1789, "the people" meant white, male, citizen landowners. Period. They were the only ones allowed to vote. They were the only ones who developed a sufficient connection with this country.
Today, of course, "the people" also include non-whites and women. But still not "all individuals" or "all persons" or even "all citizens".
Incredibly, paulsen twists a case that clearly stated non-citizens were not part of "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments into nullification of the clear wording of the 2A and claims that the BOR does not apply to "all citizens". That post takes lying and twisting to a new low, even for paulsen.
Gasp! Does this mean that MileHi finally admits that "the people" does not mean everyone? Be still my heart!
"and claims that the BOR does not apply to "all citizens".
Some of the amendments apply to every individual, citizen or not. Some to "the people". The third amendment only applies to homeowners. The sixth only to "the accused".
You can't sit there and generalize like that and accuse another poster of lying.
In 1792, "the people" did not include all citizens. Women and children were excluded from that category. The insane, the feeble-minded, the infirm, felons, and prisoners were excluded.
Even today, "the people" does not include all citizens.
By their “reasoning” the Crips and the Bloods are militias.
No, not "everyone", just us citizens. I have not held otherwise.
The third amendment only applies to homeowners.
Wow, so government soldiers CAN be quartered in people apartments? More new info from paulsen. I bet a lot of renters will be surprised to learn this.
The sixth only to "the accused".
The accused what? Citizen, one of "the people".
Military personnel and their families are often housed off base in privately owned housing. If the OWNERS agree to it.
That is not what paulsen posted, Roscoe.
Apply that observation to your own post.
Sorry it was over your head.
All citizens? Then why didn't the Founders say that? They did elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution when they meant citizens.
"Wow, so government soldiers CAN be quartered in people apartments?"
I quoted the third amendment. As with the fourth, it says "house". If you think both amendments exclude apartments, well, I'm not surprised. Hell, you think the second amendment applies to all citizens.
"The accused what? Citizen, one of "the people"."
Nope. Everyone.
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.