Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
I asked you for the historical references you were claiming supported your position. Why in the world would I click on link for Orrin Hatch or John Ashcroft?
If their words contain a link to a historical reference, might I suggest you cite that link instead instead of expecting me to go rooting around for it?
You are like a punch drunk boxer swaying in the middle of the ring, unconscious on your feet... The fight is lost, is just doesn't register in that damaged brain of yours that it's over.
From your past refusal to read the quotes posted, would me re-posting the quotes again actually make a dent in your idiocy?
And I've already told you why the Jefferson, Paine, and now the Tucker quotes do not support your second amendment claim.
I'm sure the others don't either.
Well, you've tried. You've been wrong, you've lied, and you've ignored parts you don't like.
This doesn't change the fact that the quotes themselves stand.
Jefferson's quote was referencing the Virginia State Constitution. Henry's was referencing the militia as mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Proving YOU lied. Those quotes had nothing to do with the second amendment. Not even close.
Why do you continue to cite those as support for your twisted and goofy interpretation of the second amendment? They don't and they never will!
Idiot! I'm done with you on this thread. You're crazy.
The little pamphlet herewith inclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution.(5) Various and numerous as they appear they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition. The articles relating to Treaties---;to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all the errors in the System positive & negative put together. It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as thesemay consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light 1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson,(6) the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal - Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789 James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
And the Patrcik Henry quote was even more on target, despite your assertion otherwise. "Who are the militia? Are they not outselves?" Duh... did you think he was just referencing Delegates? That only those so elected had a Right to kepp and bear arms?
You know... You sound very childish when you try and turn the argument around like that. Being patently absurd doesn't work well for you as a debate technique.
I'm done with you on this thread.
Promise? Would you mind if the AdminMod held you to that one?
Dumbasses...
"The question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."
"Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed."
- Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)
(my underline)
How about a quote from a Founder stating that the peasantry need no arms.
As you’re fond of noting, governments only have powers delegated them by the people.
States have retained powers, one of which is forming a state Militia.
So you grant states do not have rights, only powers?
So no independent right/power for a state to form a state militia?
Everyone calls it "State's Rights" but it's actually retained powers. So it depends on how nitpicky you want to be -- do you want to argue about what it's called or what it means?
Unless further clarified without antagonism, I’ll assume you contend states do not have rights.
Likewise...
Unless further clarified without antagonism, I’ll assume you interpret Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution as meaning states are denied the power to form their own militias unless explicitly authorized by Congress to do so.
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.