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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
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.