Assault weapons ban back in play; Feinstein tries to get reluctant Congress ...

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb 9, 2004 | by Edward Epstein

[Lazamataz]

Washington -- Gun control hasn't emerged as a leading issue in the 2004 presidential race, but that is likely to change as Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein intensifies her effort to win renewal of the decade-old assault weapons ban, which expires in September.

[ought-six]

"The members of the militia which was stated as a justification for the 2d. Is the 'people' the same as 'an individual person?' Wonder why the amendment was not written to say '...the right of citizens or inhabitants?' This isn't a trick question. Do you have any idea why that particular wording was selected?"

Are you lame? "The people" in the 2nd Amendment is the same "people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments. Ever hear of "We the People"? If you are one of the "people," the Bill of Rights provides for the protection of your rights.

[Euro-American Scum]

Are you lame? "The people" in the 2nd Amendment is the same "people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments. Ever hear of "We the People"? If you are one of the "people," the Bill of Rights provides for the protection of your rights.

You have to be a college graduate to be unable to figure this out.

[looscnnn]

Isn't Texas one? I can't remember which ones, I am looking on the net.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So those rumors are true!

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have said repeatedly that I don't favor its renewal, put your glasses back on. The trust of my being on this thread is to attack the foolish/ludicrous/absurd/self defeating idea that gunowners will protect their rights by turning on Bush when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a type of thinking that is worthy of Mel Brooks level of ridicule.

[justshutupandtakeit]

They have played almost no part in the development of constitutional law.

Applicable only to the reservation of state authority over municipal and state laws not in conflict with the US constitution the passage of the 14th amendment removed much of whatever substance was ever in the 9th and 10th.

I find it remarkable that you understand clearly the impossibility of using those amendments as a justification of secession like most of those who normally argue WITH you, yet seem to have little comprehension of much else within the constitution. Not that I claim much less eclecticism myself.

Anytime my comments on the 9th or 10th are challenged I ask to be pointed to significant cases where they were successfully used as a constitutional defense. Be my guest.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The 9th and 10th concern only laws passed regarding municipal and state concerns as long as none of them affect the Union. There are few of these "rights" left after passage of the 14th amendment. They have never played much of a role in constitutional law even when the most rabid of states' rights presidents were in office. And you believe this the result of some conspiracy?

Their vagary is the reason for their irrelevance. That and the irreconcilable conflict with the intent of the constitution to "provide for a more perfect Union." Any attempt to put much weight in them would be destructive of the Union.

Ron Paul is a clown taken seriously by few. He is a good litmus for what is incorrect policy.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Military training must be ongoing. Militia's drilled on a routine basis. This would be even more important today since the weaponry advances considerably year to year. Past military service does not keep one current. Just look at the vast array of new weapons our boys in Iraq are employing.

Professional armies employ planes, missles, tanks, artillary, aircraft carriers and submarines. There is no prospect of that type of force being serious countered by modern day militias even with assault weapons. Be realistic.

Military activity today is a huge industrial concern which puts forces into place and provides enormous quantities of supplies, machinery, fuels to those forces. That kind of technology can only be countered by similiar forces it is only harassed by light forces such as militias.

Soviet defeat in Afganistan was only possible because the mujadeen were supplied and equipped and trained by the Super powers. Even so they would have won had they not lost the stomach for the war.

[looscnnn]

Sorry, your right. Butthead got me all worked up and I was not thinking straight.

[justshutupandtakeit]

In 1787 it did not use that definition. People was more properly defined as "free people" since obviously the right of those people to KaBA who weren't "free" were infringed in many areas.

Indian chiefs (not taxed) were also NOT part of the people.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What is your point? Militia was considered every able bodied free man in 1787. Not all the People were in the militia.

[xsrdx]

This thread has LEGS.

NRA Anti-AWB Website

SUNSET THE AW BAN

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress is explicitly authorized to regulate "the manner of holding elections" and financial limits were upheld decades ago.

Who seriously believes this law will stop much advertising in elections? Do you really believe that? This law will not cause the RATS to even pause in their assault on truth and decency.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I like to provoke discussion.

[TigersEye]

Well, that would be one way to deal with gangs.

Yes it would. I have argued the merits of the WoSD's with one long time FReeper who, in all seriousness, believes that America's drug problem should be dealt with by carpet bombing the neighborhoods where the dealers and users live.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Any such thing would be painted by the RATmedia as virtue personified and lauded by the moronic population.

After all a victory by the insurgents would mean grandma is out in the streets eating dog food. They would also demand a list of Republicans to hunt down and destroy for the good of the collective. Sean Penn and Michal Moore would lead the mob.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

"You will have never seen, nor will you ever see any statement by me that the Constitution is not relevent."

The reason the 9th and 10th have been ignored is because they are so vague as to be useless in legal terms.
They were a sop to the anti-federalists and no one expected that they would have any value other than to mollify opposition to the constitution.
362 posted on 02/10/2004 1:22:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

______________________________________

Busted again in clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless.

They have played almost no part in the development of constitutional law.

Not the issue.. You clearly stated the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless. They aren't.. -- And you show your contempt.

Applicable only to the reservation of state authority over municipal and state laws not in conflict with the US constitution, the passage of the 14th amendment removed much of whatever substance was ever in the 9th and 10th.

Proving nothing. You are attempting to weasel out of your BS comment, -- clearly stating the 9/10th are vague, irrelevent, & useless, -- by changing the subject.

I find it remarkable that you understand clearly the impossibility of using those amendments as a justification of secession like most of those who normally argue WITH you, yet seem to have little comprehension of much else within the constitution.

Your lack of comprehension for our constitution has been proven here, not mine..

Not that I claim much less eclecticism myself. Anytime my comments on the 9th or 10th are challenged I ask to be pointed to significant cases where they were successfully used as a constitutional defense. Be my guest.

You were hoisted by your own words.. Don't expect anyone else to argue your case.

[spunkets]

"Congress is explicitly authorized to regulate "the manner of holding elections" and financial limits were upheld decades ago."

We went through that before. The manner of elections refers to mechanism and time, not to The amount, or content of political speech. That is true regardless of what the SCOTUS said. The financial limits are unconstitutional. Assaults on truth and decency are also not limited to rats.

[tpaine]

"We went through that before."
-spunkets-


______________________________________



We've ~ALL~ went through this before.

Our boy takes a goofy position, "to provoke discussion", [as he just admitted] and then glories in taking his defense to new, ever more 'provocative' heights of trollism..
Obviously, he craves the attention, even at the expense of his credibility.

- Weird fella.

[freeeee]

The 9th and 10th concern only laws passed regarding municipal and state concerns as long as none of them affect the Union

I didn't see that in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers, or coming from the mouths of any one of the founders. Let me guess - an activist judge made that up? Maybe one of FDR's flunkies?

you believe this the result of some conspiracy?

I'm not suggesting a sneaky cabal or black helicopters. Rather, an incremental widespread institutional policy of ignoring the Constitution, right out in the open but through enough tortured legalese to avoid coming right out and saying, "We don't care what the Constitution says."

Given the irresistable temptation of immense power, this is hardly a surprise. In fact it's as expected as the sun rising.

Their vagary is the reason for their irrelevance.

I've already addressed vagueness. Maybe you can tell me what part of the 10th Amendment you find vague.

That and the irreconcilable conflict with the intent of the constitution to "provide for a more perfect Union."

Enumerated powers were essential to the design of the republic, and a limited government is impossible without them. Were they not Article I, Section 8 would be unnecessary and redundant. The Constitution wouldn't have included any more than a method of electing officials, and a few incredibly VAGUE goals such as "provide for a more perfect Union", and "promote the general welfare". Those were meant to be a mere preface to the enumerated powers that followed and the 10th Amendment hammered that home.

Here we see Madison commenting on limited powers in regard to the "general welfare" clause. The same can easily be said about "to provide for a more perfect Union.":

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

Any attempt to put much weight in them would be destructive of the Union.

Ignoring them has destroyed the republic, made the US exactly what the founders were trying to avoid, and made a mockery of the War for Independece. Regardless, even if a strict interpretation of the Constitution favors my argument, I concede your side has won where it really matters. But the socialistic, imperialistic bloated nanny state that resulted isn't anything to be proud about. That is the inescapable legacy your side has reaped. It's shameful.