Posted on 06/16/2004 8:42:31 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
On gun control, Schartzenegger and Feinstein are siamese twins. That's what this thread is about, remember?
When you find a better gubinator, lemme know.
Got a whole list, if the National Republican party would grow some balls and give them some support. It doesn't include opportunistic RINOs who hijacked the recall movement after the conservatives had already done the heavy lifting. As for how good a governator Arnie really is, I'll let you know after his first budget is passed. If it spends less than the income with no new taxes, I'll cut Arnie all sorts of slack. But I'm not holding my breath, since his first big project was to push through a bond tax on my kid's future income.
In the meantime :^> maybe you should drink a big cuppa STFU with your shallow hyperbole.
That's the way to think! Silence dissent and be a good Party Member. Richie Riordan would be proud of you.
You're absolutely correct. Please feel free to continue with your shallow hyperbole. The inability to STFU helps to identify the stupid ones.
True. And a purist would argue that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.
If not, then why did the Founding Fathers include that part? -- they could have very easily left it out.
| Guns and ammunition are only available in stores. Visit your local Wal-Mart for Every Day Low Prices on a huge selection of top brands. |
| Wal-Mart proudly carries your favorite brands, including: |
|
|
You are such a transparent troll that it is amazing Jim hasn't banned you yet.
Our Rights to keep and bear arms is only partly about the militia. The rest is protecting ourselves from lawlessness. Even if that lawlessness comes from tinpot dictator wanna-be's like yourself.
Because your personal security is not the concern of the national government.
The power of a state is limited by the state's constitution. If the RKBA is not protected by the state constitution, then the legislature may write whatever law they wish -- how would the law be challenged?
The California state constitution does not protect the RKBA.
Your tired line of "it is ok for States to infringe your Rights" has already been decimated so many times you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.
What's pitiful is you probably didn't even intend to be ironic with this.
But my personal right to free speech, exercise of religion, to be free from unreasonable searches, to have a trial by jury, etc. is?
I wonder why that is? Any thoughts on this?
Security is not a right.
If I ever said that, then it deserved to be decimated.
Of course I didn't, and you're the one that "really ought to be ashamed of yourself" for posting such a lie.
Gee, the fourth amendment says it is.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Those are restrictions on acts of government. They provide you with a degree of security from the government, but do not grant a right of general security. You can sue the government for violating you rights. You cannot sue them for failing to protect you. Your personal security is your responsibility. But I suspect you knew that already.
Dont blame me - I voted my conscience. McClintock.
The California state constitution does not protect the RKBA.
The CA Constitution doesn't need to, any more than it needs to "protect" any other Right. The Right of Franchise, for example. The RKBA exists independent of the State. It is an inalienable Right which happens to be specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
I would challenge the law on these grounds:
1: The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. "Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
2: The RKBA is a specifically enumerated Right of the people, not of the militia.
3: The State can only exercise powers not forbidden to it by the Constitution, or not reserved to the Federal government by the Constitution, under the 10th A.
4: The 14th A. forbids the States to "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Being a part of the supreme law of the land, the RKBA is exactly such a privilege, so banning the RKBA is a power forbidden to the States. This, or any Right, can only be removed from an individual after full due process of Law.
5: The State of California has infringed on my RKBA without said due process (I am not a felon, nor have I been accused of any felonious behavior).
6: The State of California has demonstrated no overriding compelling interest in infringing on my RKBA (the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument).
But that doesn't mean everything in it applies to the states.
The "privileges and immunities clause from the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "
The words, in fact, prohibit the making or enforcing of a certain class of laws. To suggest otherwise is to question what the meaning of the word "No" is.
Without it, all of our arms would be locked up in central armories and not available unless a person presented a valid hunting license, passed a sobriety and background check, and presented themselves wearing hunter orange clothing. They would then be required to show proof of financial liability insurance at which time they would be permitted to have possession of a single firearm and four rounds of ammunition.
I think you know perfectly well that anti-gunners and the Supreme Court of the United States would have determined that the Second Amendment was just about hunting without the Militia clause.
"A well-read Electorate being necessary to the continuance of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"
Do you think that the above statements would allow confiscation of books from people who are not registered to vote? To think that, is to think that only the books owned by registered voters and read by registered voters can contribute to a well-read electorate. Even then, one would have to be willing to disregard the reference to a pre-existing right to keep and read books.
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.