Hasta La Vista, 2nd Amendment

Liberty Belles ^ | Jennifer Freeman

[TERMINATTOR]

 

California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has recently reaffirmed his support for a federal ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, commonly known as the "Assault Weapons" ban. There was much debate and speculation about Schwarzenegger's position on firearms ownership prior to his being elected. This was primarily due to the fact that there was very little public information about his position on firearms. Californians were left to speculate about whether The Terminator -- the alpha male who made millions of dollars making movies in which characters used semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves -- was actually Mr. Shriver, a gun-banning politican towing the line for the Kennedy clan. Perhaps the Governor is neither an alpha male, nor a Kennedy wanna-be. Perhaps he is more like Bill Clinton in that he makes his decision based on what the polls say. And we know all how inaccurate polls can be. Whatever the reason, a person cannot support a ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles and claim to uphold the Constitution. A politician cannot take away the rights of the citizens to protect themselves and claim to be for the people. A man cannot be judged as having good character, if his decisions are based on personal gain. And Californians cannot complain about gun rights while voting for a candidate who is questionable, at best, on the issue of firearm rights.

Say, "Hasta la vista" to the Second Amendment, baby!

[robertpaulsen]

So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution for over 125 years, but the passage of yet another amendment, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line?

That the states collectively slapped their foreheads and said, "Oh.. So THAT'S what you meant!"

C'mon.

[robertpaulsen]

No, it established a "Citizen of the United States" that was not already a "Citizen of the State".

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments dealt with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not "Citizens of the State" in which they resided, nor did the state have the power to make them so (that was a function of the federal government).

[Dead Corpse]

"Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for... peace and safety... as to render its use impracticable,... it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress."
--Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:178

[Dead Corpse]

"[The first step is] to concur in a declaration of rights, at least, so that the nation may be acknowledged to have some fundamental rights not alterable by their ordinary legislature, and that this may form a ground work for future improvements."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1788. ME 7:18, Papers 13:190

[Dead Corpse]

I am persuaded that a firm union is as necessary to perpetuate our liberties as it is to make us respectable; and experience will probably prove that the National Government will be as natural a guardian of our freedom as the State Legislatures.
Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788

[tpaine]

 Posted by robertpaulsen:

The phrase "Citizen of the United States" was created by the 14th amendment.

Typical weird misinfo by the 'states rights' anti-constitutional crowd.

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 591 [1979].

"Blacks" is wrong. All Representatives, Senators, & the President must be a "Citizen of the United States", as is specified in Articles I & II.

No, it established a "Citizen of the United States" that was not already a "Citizen of the State".

How dense can you get paulsen? There have always been "Citizens of the United States' who are not 'Citizens of a State'. They live in the territories or possessions of the United States. -- They also possess full individual rights as guaranteed by our US Constitution. -- AND; they do not lose the RKBA's when they move to California, as you claim.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments dealt with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not "Citizens of the State" in which they resided, nor did the state have the power to make them so (that was a function of the federal government).

Good grief. -- Where do you come up with these bizarre 'citizenship' theories, paulsen? Is there some specific site that posts this weird BS?

[CBF]

That notion may seem obsolete today, but that doesn't repeal the amendment, only the people acting through their representatives can do that.

Who's saying it seems obsolete?

[Dead Corpse]

The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, 1787

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen: Show me, specifically in black and white, where the Constitution or Amendments extends the BoR to the states (prior to the 14th amendment).
______________________________________

Article V: ... [amendments] shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution...
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, ..., 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.
396 LexBaird
______________________________________

So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution for over 125 years, but the passage of yet another amendment, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line? That the states collectively slapped their foreheads and said, "Oh.. So THAT'S what you meant!" C'mon.
401 paulsen
______________________________________

No, Lex showed you what you asked for paulsen, -- specifically.
-- And now your best comeback is feeble sarcasm.
- You are truly pitiful at debate.

[Dead Corpse]

So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it. This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms in the sixth article: "That 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."
-Brutus Anti-Federalist #84

[inquest]

It's meaning was clear before the 16th made it even more clear, even to you.

If it's clear that that prohibition on power didn't apply to the states, then it's equally clear that your claim that "Neither the Feds nor the States were to have powers prohibited by the Constitution" is dead wrong. Thanks.

[Chemist_Geek]

The part that concerns me is the 2nd enthusiasts cutting off their noses to spite their faces by getting Kerry elected, just because Bush won't capitulate to their specific demands.

Incrementalism worked for the gun-grabbers; it can work for us as well. If we avoid just such a situation as you outline above.

[inquest]

Nothing in Article IV confers on states powers they didn't already have, and the privileges-and-immunities clause (which, I remind you, pre-dates the Bill of Rights) simply requires that states not discriminate against citizens from other states.

I should point out further that privileges and immunities are not the same as rights.

[Dead Corpse]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government". A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.
--Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, 1859

[robertpaulsen]

Oops. I meant to say, "It established a "citizen of the United States" that was not already a "Citizen of the State".

[Ken H]

This is the problem I've had with your hypothetical from the beginning. The USSC just doesn't wake up one morning and start interpreting the second amendment.

You've gone along with the hypothetical without objecting and even used it yourself in post 382. When your argument gets shot down by mrsmith in post #385 and my post #384, all of a sudden you've had problems with it from the beginning.

I'd be interested in the details of the hypothetical case that the USSC heard to come to this conclusion. The reason being that I believe it would be the landmark case that individual gun grabbers would use at the state level to fight against their own state laws and the interpretation of their own state constitution, especially if their own state constitution contains language similar to the second amendment.

That has nothing to do with incorporation. Give it up paulsen.

It's your hypothetical -- make something up. I don't mean to waste your time, but these landmark cases are important when it comes to subsequent legislation.

I gave you the most unfavorable set of circumstances of a USSC ruling on the Second Amendment. You've had ample opportunity to come up with a scenario where incorporation would be detrimental to the RKBA. You couldn't.

I tried to provide you with analogies where the USSC interpreted an incorporated BOR amendment and that interpretation then applied to the states. Obviously, I wasn't successful, but that's my argument.

Nice spin. Your use of the flag burning analogy to argue against incorporation of the Second was refuted.

How about this? How about federal first amendment restrictions on pornography? Doesn't the USSC interpretation of free speech apply to the states? Can a state allow, for example, child pornography as protected free speech if it wishes? Do you understand my point?

Give it up. We've already been through this with flag burning. If USSC says flag burning/porn etc. is not protected speech, then the State is free to either outlaw or allow flag burning/porn etc.

If USSC says flag burning etc. is protected speech, then a State cannot outlaw it. What is so hard to understand?

If USSC says Second Amendment does not protect individual RKBA, it simply is left to the States to decide. There is nothing that prevents a State from protecting it in their State Constitution.

Time to admit you've lost the argument against incorporation.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II,"

Since you posted it, you must agree with it. So, our RKBA is delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II?

[Dead Corpse]

Delegated? No. Preserved. Protected. Made immune from intrusion at any level of government? Yes.

Specificly because of people like you...

[epow]

Who's saying it seems obsolete?

Certainly not me. I was referring to the so-called moderates on the issue who say there is no more need for a citizen's militia since it could not possibly do battle with our present day armed forces if the government ever became so oppressive it provoked another revolution. They ignore the fact that the best defense against armed gangs and common criminals is armed citzens. The amendment will never be obsolete as long as human nature remains the same

I was simply saying that whether or not those people are right about the necessity of a citizen's militia in this modern era of nukes and ultra hi-tech weapons, and personally I don't think they are, the amendment is still part of the Constitution and as such it should be obeyed by our lawmakers and judges. Forcing them to do that is another proposition altogether, but one which should be undertaken before it's too late.

[Dead Corpse]

It doesn't matter if We the People could ever defeat our own Federal Army. It is better to be armed and have illusions of grandure, than to be disarmed and completely helpless to even try.