Posted on 05/05/2013 10:11:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
More specifically, writings about James Madison, Thomas jefferson, Justice John Marshall and John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, all clearly indicate that our enumerated constitutional freedoms were originally not intended to be absolute. This is for the simple reason that the Founding States had decided that prohibitions of "government" power in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. In fact, its not necessarily inappropriate to refer to the 13 original states as the 13 original nanny states.
Note, for example, that regardless what FDR's activist, anti-religious expression justices wanted everybody to think about "atheist" Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" where the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause is concerned, the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following. Jefferson had written that the Founders had made the 10th Amendment to clarifiy that the states had reserved government power to regulate our 1st Amendment protected rights to the states regardless that the Founders had made the 1st Amendment to clarify that they had prohibited such powers to Congress altogether.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …" --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
But to be honest, regardless that the nanny states seemingly had the power to regulate civilian arms since the 2nd Amendment evidently didn't apply to them, and I need to research this issue more, state lawmakers in the 18th and 19th centuries undoubtedly understood the need for pioneering families to be able to protect themselves with guns.
Are you proposing that we ban chlorine?
I guess I don’t get where you’re going with this. Obviously, the author of the posted article was primarily interested in weakening the guarantee of rights specifically named in the Constitution, with the clear intent to enable the government to trample them.
Is that your intent? Or are you trying to make some different point?
And I agree that sometimes, in particular situations, there can be cases where the rights of one person seem to be in conflict with another, and that a judicial decision would be necessary to prioritize one set of rights over the other in that particular instance.
But in the two cases you and I have discussed, that is not the scenario. If you are on my property after I have told you to leave, you need to leave, and the question of whether you have a right to carry a gun is completely moot. I acknowledge your absolute right to carry a gun. But since you have no right to be on my property, whether or not you have a gun is irrelevant to any reasonable discussion. You have no right to be on my property, so you and your rights need to leave.
And it is true that my right to place the tip of my nose ends where you are swinging your arm. That’s why boxing is and should be legal. And if you are swinging your arms and I accidentally or deliberately walk into a punch in the nose, I cannot claim that you are violating my rights (that is, unless you are on my property and I have told you to leave). And that’s equally true if I am on your property and you have told me to leave.
I really don’t see what’s so difficult about this, or what your ultimate point is.
But if I had to guess, I would suggest that your ultimate purpose is to aid those who would argue that there really are no rights, and that the government can basically do what it wants as long as five goons in black robes say they can. In which case, I have nothing more to say to you, except to remind you of Jefferson’s observation that the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants from time to time.
If you want to engage in a narrow focus, point by point discussion, I haven’t the interest. If you want to address the actual question which is whether the second amendment recognizes a god given right for individuals to possess WMDs I’ll be happy to listen to your considered opinion. I for one do not believe my neighbor should possess a nuke.
Let me know if that strikes you as extreme.
Umm, we have a few sane states that don’t require a permit AZ, AK, WY, ....
can’t disagree with that
You are the one who brought mustard gas in to the conversation. I can understand your not wanting to discuss it, given how trivial it is to create such ‘weapons of mass destruction’ from materials that can be bought at any home depot, or grocery store. Your desire to make the issue something ridiculous like nuclear weapons must mean you believe it’s as easy to put one of those together out of common materials. Do tell us, please, how one might accomplish that.
That is how it is sophistry. You have no right to be on anyone's private property. Period.
I didn’t ask you.
Too bad. It's a public forum and I decided to tell you.
With his wealth, it would be trivial for George Soros to buy a nuke from North Korea for example. Do you maintain that would be protected under the second amendment? Do the various laws that would seek to prevent such a purchase constitute an infringement under the second amendment in your opinion?
There was, after all, a long-term effort involving considerable legalistic gymnastics to justify denying a citizen the right to vote on the basis of the color of his skin. That right wasn't absolute either. How comfortable is the author with denying that one?
This silly, actually. What is irking the proggies is that they can't have their way by simply redefining the words that make up the Constitution. The author is hoping for a new Supreme Court that will do that for him, best accomplished by 0bama or Hillary rubbing the noses of his class enemies in it. He thinks that will be sweet. He is likely to be disappointed.
You'd be guessing wrong. My purpose is to try and get better thinking, better arguments for our side, for the things we believe. Normally I'd address your post in order, but I wanted this clarified up front.
I guess I don’t get where you’re going with this. Obviously, the author of the posted article was primarily interested in weakening the guarantee of rights specifically named in the Constitution, with the clear intent to enable the government to trample them.
Is that your intent? Or are you trying to make some different point?
You may or may not be correct about the author's interest, but I took it at face value for my purpose. He states "No right is absolute", and by "absolute" I take him to mean "Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional".
The question in my post 18 was intended to generate thought. Many people have the knee jerk reaction that (undefined) property rights automatically trump RKBA. They seem to maintain the (undefined) property rights are absolute. Others disagree, as in the case of those who believe they have the right to keep and bear a firearm in their car when the car is in a parking lot that is the privately owned property of someone else. Seemed appropriate for a "No right is absolute" discussion.
And I agree that sometimes, in particular situations, there can be cases where the rights of one person seem to be in conflict with another, and that a judicial decision would be necessary to prioritize one set of rights over the other in that particular instance.
Do you mean no right is absolute?
But in the two cases you and I have discussed, that is not the scenario. If you are on my property after I have told you to leave, you need to leave, and the question of whether you have a right to carry a gun is completely moot.
Within the bounds of our discussion I had not considered that I had gone so far as to be on your property. I had considered that I had been denied permission to be on your property.
I acknowledge your absolute right to carry a gun.
If I have to give up that right to get your permission to be on your property, the right is not absolute. By the way, why are you so sure I have no right to be on your property? What if your property is, say, a bank? Are you saying I have no right to be on your bank property, during business hours of course, to withdraw my funds?
I really don’t see what’s so difficult about this...
I know. So few seem to. That's a problem.
...or what your ultimate point is.
In part at least, to try and get better thinking, better arguments for our side, for the things we believe, in order to counter "those who would argue that there really are no rights, and that the government can basically do what it wants as long as five goons in black robes say they can."
You seem to have quoted something I wrote that is true in order to show that what I wrote is false. Anyway, you made no attempt to show that what I wrote was false.
You have no right to be on anyone's private property. Period.
That's an awfully broad statement. How do you know that to be true? You have no idea what arrangements my neighbors and I have made to give each other the right to access each others property. For all you know I have money in a financial institution and therefore have a right to be on that private property, at certain times, to discuss my money.
Too bad. It's a public forum and I decided to tell you.
I don't believe you're keeping up with the discussion.
That's an awfully broad statement. How do you know that to be true?
If that weren't true then it wouldn't be private property.
Too bad. It's a public forum and I decided to tell you.
I don't believe you're keeping up with the discussion.
That discussion was just between us so I am right there with it.
More sophistry. I am not the only one to notice it or call you on it.
That is in direct contradiction to your reply in a previous post...
A “yes” or “no” answer was all that was essential.
So you want to say in one post that all you were looking for was a "yes" or "no" answer and in the next post you were trying to get better thinking and better arguments. Clearly what you're really after is a way to convince yourself that you have something of substance to say and an ability to debate that you don't actually possess.
Anti-gun? I’ve been responsible for s firearm since I was nine years old and currently own more than forty of them. I recognize an inherent right to do so no government can legitimately infringe. You simply haven’t the mental horsepower to mount an answer to my question. Admit that or answer the question.
The second amendment speaks of arms. Nukes are arms. Do laws limiting the possession of nukes by individuals constitute an infringement or are they reasonable laws. That’s the question. If you answer in the affirmative you agree the second is not absolute. If you answer in the negative you’re an ass. Take your pick.
You must be using your own specialized definitions that allow you to claim to be right.
That discussion was just between...
Did I say otherwise? And I still don't believe you kept up with the discussion.
Unproven allegation.
I am not the only one to notice it or call you on it.
No proof there.
TigersEye: Perhaps you should reread Post 63.
The replies are not mutually exclusive.
So you want to say in one post that all you were looking for...
I didn't say that was all I was looking for.
Clearly what you're really after is a way to convince yourself that you have something of substance to say and an ability to debate that you don't actually possess.
Clearly that's the pot calling the Corning Ware black.
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.