Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
Excerpts from this report done by US Congressmen in 1982.

I can dig up numerous qoutes from the Founders if you'd like, but here is my favorite from an ex-President.

"No Free Man shal be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson

203 posted on 12/03/2003 11:43:31 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
Something else to consider - does the federal government bear any responsibility for insuring the security and freedom of the state, and preventing the individual states from compromising that security?
204 posted on 12/03/2003 12:11:49 PM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: Dead Corpse
Your report, which I read, consists of 99% arguing that the second amendment applies to individuals, not militias (with which I agree) and takes a mere 1% at the end to dicsuss whether the amendment applies to the federal government or to the states.

The sum total of what it says is, "In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas the Supreme Court adhered to the view (of Cruikshank). Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of Rights — and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment — are binding upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law."

So what your link is saying is that despite three (3) USSC rulings (looks like I missed one), the author is of the opinion that the second amendment was meant to be and should be binding upon the states.

Yeah, right. And I am of the opinion that I was meant to be, and should be, rich and handsome. Whoop de do.

205 posted on 12/03/2003 12:19:37 PM PST by robertpaulsen (One out of two ain't bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson