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

To: robertpaulsen
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.

520 posted on 08/04/2004 6:26:22 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
"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."

Excluding the recent 5th Circuit ruling in Emerson, find for me one second amendment ruling where any court did not tie the RKBA to a militia.

My claim stands. You still can't tell the difference between fact and opinion, huh?

523 posted on 08/05/2004 6:13:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies ]

To: William Tell
"Both have suffered claims that regulation is necessary to combat threats of overthrowing the government."

Are you referring to Gitlow? The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, you know.

525 posted on 08/05/2004 6:25:37 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | 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