Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
You aren't playing by the same rules that they are...you post the truth, mean what you say and don't intentionally mis-state what they say.
They do exactly the opposite and then complain that you are posting by their rules and they are adhering to yours.
BTW, how are you and yours?
By your assorted assertions, the 2nd Amendment serves no purpose whatsoever.
Your ignorance versus the facts. No contest.
Psychologists call that projection.
You called it.
We are good here, yope you all are too. Good bumping into you.
4. Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkeable difference between the characters of the Inconveniencies which attend a Declaration of rights, and those which attend the want of it. The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is shortlived, moderate, and reparable. The inconveniencies of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting and irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse.
Poor stupid Roscoe...
You mean with quotes like this?
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." -Thomas Jefferson
You and Roscoe need to stop smoking the same brand of crack...
Check your stats moron. The FBI crime stats showed the AWB did nothing to curb violent crime. Poor you...
Same old game with our anti-RKBA trolls. Being agenda driven, the facts don’t matter to them. I have no idea why Jim allows them to pollute the forum with their violations of the ToS and their blatantly Left-wing views.
Asked and answered.
Your turn. What do you think the second amendment protects?
Same thing Orrin Hatch said it meant
Same thing Patrick Henry:
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
St. George Tucker:
The restraints imposed on the legislative powers of the federal government, are briefly comprised in the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, or in the amendments, proposed by the first congress, and since ratified in the mode prescribed by the constitution. Of these we shall take a brief survey, in the order in which they occur.
Thus far the restrictions contained in the constitution extend: "The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution 241." The following articles were proposed by congress, as amendments to the constitution, which having been duly ratified by the several states, now form a part thereof.
8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. - St. Georges Tucker. Tucker's Blackstone Vol 1, 1803
and William Rawle:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
...said it meant. The only ones not in agreement are the Brady Lawyers, activist liberal judges over the last 70 years, and you two moonbats on this thread.
When I want a cut-and-paste job from an ignorant embarrassment to this thread, I’ll ask you.
You won’t have to ask. Just repost your own stuff...
He does, and it’s all variations on “the 2ndA doesn’t apply”.
Yeah... he’s pretty much a “one trick pony” when he trolls these threads. No matter what historical documentation is posted, he just puts his tiny little fingers in his ears and repeats the Brady Mantra his handlers taught him.
Orrin Hatch is historical? John Ashcroft is historical?
I asked you for one historical quote that referenced the second amendment. I'm still waiting.
The restraints imposed on the legislative powers of the federal government, are briefly comprised in the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, or in the amendments, proposed by the first congress, and since ratified in the mode prescribed by the constitution. Of these we shall take a brief survey, in the order in which they occur.
Thus far the restrictions contained in the constitution extend: "The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution 241." The following articles were proposed by congress, as amendments to the constitution, which having been duly ratified by the several states, now form a part thereof.
8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. - St. Georges Tucker. Tucker's Blackstone Vol 1, 1803
And yeah... pretty much everyone has taken a turn posting even MORE quotes that you willfully ignore.
By definition, this is called "ignorance". Something you have an endless supply of. Of course, if you stopped and actually did the intellectually honest thing and read them, it would destroy the premise of your agenda.
I'm not holding out any hope for you. You've been shoveling the same sh*t for years on this website. You've been proven wrong time and again, and Phred Phelps like, you just continue to annoy people.
I mean, c'mon. The very first sentence of your own quote says that the BOR restrains the federal government.
Out of all the quotes, cites, refernces, etc. that you've cut-and-pasted on this forum, ad nauseum, THAT'S your best shot? Pathetic. Embarrassing, actually.
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.