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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
No. It's referring to regular troops, not militia.
Difference?
Yes.
Is a state militia organized, armed, and disciplined under the authority of Congress? leaving the state with only the power to appoint officers, and to train the militia (and that only as prescribed by Congress)?
Question uncomfortable?
Yes, but not exclusively. It is a shared power with the states.
"leaving the state with only the power to appoint officers, and to train the militia (and that only as prescribed by Congress)?"
The state has the exclusive power to appoint officers and train the Militia however they want, minimally as prescribed by Congress.
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about sharing that power.
The training is as prescribed by Congress - no mention of “minimally”.
Congress may have the option to share those powers, but at its own discretion - if Congress chooses to not share therein, that is its delegated power and the state has no say.
If the power is not removed from the states (eg., in Article I, Section 10), then it is a shared power. If Congress does not arm the Militia, the states retain the power to do so. Prior to the federal Militia Act of 1792, the states had the power to organize their Militia as they saw fit.
"The training is as prescribed by Congress - no mention of “minimally”."
If Congress says twice a year, there's nothing to stop the state from training three times a year.
The People: any and everyone who is lawfully within the territorial limits of the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. In other words, everyone who is a citizen or LEGAL resident of this country can be said to be part of “We, the People.”
So "the people" of the second amendment are different than "the people" in Article I, Section 2 which reads (in part):
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..."
If indeed "the people" means "everyone who is a citizen or LEGAL resident of this country", then that means children can vote. And the insane, felons, etc.
You sure you mean that? In other parts of the U.S. Constitution (eg., Article IV, Section 2), if the Founding Fathers meant "citizen" they wrote "citizen".
Ooooh. And you posted to "All". That's embarrassing on a global scale.
I’ll bite.
If “the people” amounts to “eligible to vote”, then do you conceed the 2nd Amendment protects (to wit “shall not be infringed”), at least on a federal level, the right of all registered voters to keep and bear arms?
Yes, assuming the registered voter a) is otherwise qualified (ie., not in jail, not insane, etc.) and b) is acting in a capacity as a Militia member.
The phrase "the people" as used in the U.S. Constitution had a certain meaning to the Founding Fathers. It meant the enfranchised body politic, "full" citizens, individuals who were invested in the country. In 1792, "the people" were white, male, voting, citizen landowners. Not everyone. (Today, of course, "the people" encompass a larger group.)
If the Founders meant every individual, the used the term "person" (or "he"). If they only meant citizens they used the term "citizens".
The Founders could easily have written the second amendment using those other terms if that was who they meant to protect.
He should have a target tattooed on his foot.
The several states set their own guidelines as to who can vote in their elections. Which is CITIZENS. However, it is not just citizens who may own firearms. It is anyone who is here LEGALLY.
What’s embarrassing (or SHOULD be, but you’re beyond the pale) is your constant cheerleading for big and bigger government. Defining “people” as those here legally, whether citizen or legal immigrant, indicates that the People do have a connection to this nation AND are subject to its jurisdiction. Please get your head out of your butt and start acting like a human being.
Read a book.
The FBI crime stats showed the AWB did nothing to curb violent crime.
Try to keep up.
Foreign visitors here on vacation? Foreign students?
So, in addition to small children, the insane, the feeble-minded, felons and prisoners (who are all citizens) who may have guns, you're adding foreign visitors? Gosh, is there a waiting period for foreigners?
http://www.awbansunset.com/
http://www.madogre.com/Political%20Items/TheAWB.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Let's get back to ignoring each other shall we? It's much safer for you...
[I don’t think that anyone ever believed it would reduce crime, on either side of the aisle.]
Try to keep up.
Try to keep up...
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.