Quick Question: What is a .50 cal BMG rifle?

[robertpaulsen]

"How can you believe individuals have a constitutional right to keep and bear militia related weapons and also say States may infringe that right? It's not really a constitutional right if the States can override it, is it?"

Where do you get this "constitutional right" bull$hit? You do NOT get your rights from any constitution.

You have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That right is protected by your state constitution. That right may not be infringed by the federal government. What is so hard about that?

1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.

2) The RKBA as described in #1 (whatever it is) may not be infringed by the federal government. That is my interpretation.

3) Constitutional state and federal laws may contain reasonable restrictions. That is my interpretation.

(Don't ask me about any exceptions unless you can first point to a state that allows it. Then we can discuss it).

[robertpaulsen]

"You claim that in the State of CA, there is no such right. You claim that the State can prohibit keeping & bearing arms."

True and true. So?

Look at it this way, tpaine. I support liberty and freedom. I am in favor of liberty and freedom. I claim that, in Cuba, the government does not allow their people liberty and freedom. Are you saying that I don't support liberty and freedom? Are you going to say that I'm lying?

The last couple of posts, I've been treating you decently. I don't know why. But that's going to stop if you continue with this whacky logic of yours.

[tpaine]

-- "does the Second Amendment mean the States should be prohibited from infringing on the individual RKBA, if they are militia related weapons?"

Not at all. The states are limited by their state constitution. Period.

Demented opinion paulsen. The States of the Union are quite clearly limited by the US Constitution, -- most plainly in Art. VI's supremacy clause & oaths of office, and then followed by the 10ths words, saying that some powers are prohibited by it to the States. -- One such prohibited power, -- to infringe on our RKBA's.

1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.

It is not so protected in CA, as you know.
Thus, you claim CA has unlimited power to prohibit arms. -- An absurd position.

2) The RKBA as described in #1 (whatever it is) may not be infringed by the federal government. That is my interpretation.
3) Constitutional state and federal laws may contain reasonable restrictions. That is my interpretation.

Yet you support unreasonable restrictions [prohibitions] in CA.
Thus, you are lying about your "interpretations".

[robertpaulsen]

"Though with great difficulty, you seem to have admitted that the Miller court should NOT have disregarded the grammar of the Second Amendment and inferred a test which our Founders never intended."

Based on other (non-second-amendment) cases, I would not have expected the USSC in Miller to limit the weapon to an association with a militia arm. Lower courts since Miller have explicitly done so, which is the reason that I'm re-thinking my interpretation of the level and extent of our second amendment protection.

"Now I ask you recognize that the one of the immunities of citizens of the United States is an immunity from the infringement of their right to keep and bear arms."

Sorry. I don't see how. An immunity of citizens of the United States arises out of the nature and essential character of the national government. That ain't a RKBA. The national government does not extend this right (and you don't want them to) -- this is a fundamrntal right, protected by the states that is not to be infringed by the federal government.

[tpaine]

--- You claim that in the State of CA, there is no such right. You claim that the State can prohibit keeping & bearing arms.

True and true. So? Look at it this way, tpaine. I support liberty and freedom. I am in favor of liberty and freedom.

You've just admitted, boldly, that you are not in favor of the liberty & freedom to keep & bear arms in CA.

I claim that, in Cuba, the government does not allow their people liberty and freedom. Are you saying that I don't support liberty and freedom? Are you going to say that I'm lying?

Yes, I am.

The last couple of posts, I've been treating you decently. I don't know why. But that's going to stop if you continue with this whacky logic of yours.

Your support of the gungrabbing State of CA is NOT 'treating me decently', paulsen.

Take your wacky logic to DU. You are fouling the air at FR.

[Ken H]

Where do you get this "constitutional right" bull$hit?

From robertpaulsen:

But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model".

Here's the "limited individual rights model" that robertpaulsen is drifting to:

"individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service."

So robertpaulsen doesn't believe that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearm related to militia service, as he earlier claimed?

[robertpaulsen]

Figure it out yourself. I'm done explaining things to you.

Come back when you're prepared to add something to the thread.

[Ken H]

Figure it out yourself.

I did. That's why I questioned your claim that you believed in the "limited individual rights" model, which says there is an individual constitutional RKBA for weapons related to militia service.

I had doubts that you really believed that.

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen wrote:

I'm done explaining things to you.

Paulsen you've never even got ~close~ to explaining anything to anybody here.

I truly believe you really cannot understand our constitutional principles of liberty & freedom you claim to support.

[robertpaulsen]

"that you believed in the "limited individual rights" model"

C'mon. Do you have to lie to make your point? I never said that.

I told you, I'm done. All you're doing is playing your little gotch game, trying to catch me in some inconsistency. I'm not playin', jerkoff.

You want to add something? Fine. You want to debate a point? Fine.

But this crap is a waste of my time. Adios.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "An immunity of citizens of the United States arises out of the nature and essential character of the national government. That ain't a RKBA. The national government does not extend this right (and you don't want them to) -- this is a fundamrntal right, protected by the states that is not to be infringed by the federal government."

Please explain, in light of the individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected from infringement by the federal government by the Second Amendment, how this protection differs from the protection provided for freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

Please explain how the First Amendment has been "incorporated" by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and yet you deny that the Second Amendment is incorporated as well.

What is the distinction which you see which justifies the asymmetry in legal treatment?

[Ken H]

Do you have to lie to make your point? I never said that.

Here's the exchange:

I wrote: Now, how does robertpaulsen interpret the Second Amendment?

rp replied: I've always believed in the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model) interpretation of the second amendment.

But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model".

So you're somewhere between the "standard model" and "limited individual rights model", but drifting to the latter?

That's quite different than:

1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.

[inquest]

A 2-1 ruling by 9th Circuit judges is not my idea of independent, impartial, or stable.

Not your idea, huh? Well Miller isn't my idea of "reasonable" 2nd-amendment jurisprudence. So where does that leave us?

Certainly the opinions of any independent court are going to be more independent, impartial, and stable than the opinions of a political attorney general (and all attorneys general are political - I'm not singling out Aschcroft here) who has to vacate his office every 4-8 years or so to someone of the opposite party. It's beginning to sound like you want to impeach the 9th Circuit court just for being the 9th Circuit court.

The 9th circuit is free to challenge the existing federal law.

They weren't challenging it; they were challenging an interpretation of it, as I explained.

But, until a final determination is made, the federal law should be obeyed.

What are you saying? That lower federal courts can't determine that federal officials have exceeded their legal authority and enjoin them to stop? You're not making sense.

[tpaine]

To: robertpaulsen

You're not making sense.

513 inquest

_____________________________________


Finally.. You got it kiddo.

[robertpaulsen]

"Please explain,"

No. I'm tired of explaining. That's all I've been doing is explaining.

You tell me.

You tell me how this protection doesn't differ. You tell me how the second amendment has been incorporated. You tell me why they should be treated equally.

Then I'll ask the questions.

[robertpaulsen]

"Certainly the opinions of any independent court are going to be more independent, impartial, and stable than ..."

The 9th Circuit is not "any independent court". They are the most overturned LIBERAL Circuit Court in the country.

Second, this wasn't a "court" by any stretch of the term. It was two guys -- and the third guy disagreed. If the 9th agrees to hear it en banc and comes to the same conclusion, I may temper my remarks.

Third, I said my piece on the other thread. I am not interested in debating it again on this thread. I gave my opinion. You disagree.

[robertpaulsen]

"That's quite different than ..."

It better be.

[robertpaulsen]

"Well Miller isn't my idea of "reasonable" 2nd-amendment jurisprudence."

Miller gave us nothing. There was no ruling. The defense never showed. The case was remanded.

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen wrote:

I'm done explaining things to you.

_____________________________________

Paulsen you've never even got ~close~ to explaining anything to anybody here.

Yet here you are, still playing your silly game.



I truly believe you really cannot understand our constitutional principles of liberty & freedom, those you claim to support.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "You tell me how this protection doesn't differ. You tell me how the second amendment has been incorporated. You tell me why they should be treated equally. "

Well, the distinction surely can't be due to your previous claim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the states to arm their militias, can it? Because you have admitted that the Miller court should not have ruled as it did.

I have refuted the only distinction I recall you providing and now you refuse to provide any other.

Let's look at some similarities, shall we?

Both the First and the Second are unalienable rights essential for the security of a free state.

Both were of sufficient importance that the Founders put them first and second in the Bill of Rights.

Both are clearly referenced in a context which makes clear that such rights preceded the Constitution.

The enumeration of both rights was after the fact and due to concern that failing to explicitly protect the rights would result in federal infringement.

Both protections are very complete. "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed", unlike the Third Amendment which allows Congress some latitude during war.

Both rights have a history of having been infringed due to insufficient protection in some state constitutions.

Both also have a long history of being freely exercised in many states and for many decades with virtually no government interference.

Both have suffered claims that regulation is necessary to combat threats of overthrowing the government.

Both rights are exercised in multiple fashions which do not directly bear on the essential nature of the right, but which are, nevertheless, protected from infringement.

Both can be exercised in the privacy of our own homes where no one uninvited should have a power to interfere.

Both rights have been severely attacked using the excuse that infringements are "for the children".

The activities associated with both rights are exercised by the government with virtually no constraints. Congressmen say whatever they wish without legal consequence and the military possesses every weapon known to man without consequence.

Both rights are routinely denied to citizens of totalitarian governments, such as Kalifornia, or to slaves.