Posted on 12/21/2004 6:32:49 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Hey, Joe, thanks for that link to Gunfacts.info. Gonna be very helpful in arguing with the mushbrains at school!
Now let's see if we cannot repeal some of the legislation that abridges the 2nd Amendment: the 1934 NFA, the 1938 FFA, and the 1968 GCA would be a nice start. If I had my druthers, I think the GCA is the right start -- some state laws depend on it, and it would knock a hole in them also if the GCA were gone.
There is no such thing as a "Collective Right", quasi or otherwise. The term is an oxymoron. Just because the two words "collective" and "rights" can be used together in a sentence does not give them a true meaning.
"Collective Rights" is an abstract painting of something that does not exist. It's a word fraud. The minute a "Right" is collectivized, it becomes regulated and no longer guaranteed. It becomes deniable and is no longer a "Right".
4. Communist stooge.
I'd just be happy with either version if our various levels of government would realize that it IS and individual Right and that they have ZERO AUTHORITY to pass laws infringing said Right.
One hundred three pages to explain what is plainly stated in ONE sentence?
Our tax $$$ hard at work.
That is a VERY good posting, I saved the page in it's entirety. I suggest others do the same...
Excuse me, but do the lawyers at the Brady center consider that the National Guard has "Right's"? That an entity of the Federal Government has guarantees under the Constitution. Does that mean that during an Annual General Inspection (AGI) of a National Guard Unit, the Inspector General must, by force of the 3rd. Amendment, swear out a warrant describing the persons, places and things to be inspected? Not bloody likely!
That'll work, too. Probably as (3), with (4) remaining as "all of the above".
More the latter than the former.
Freeper tangofox did alot of good research and put it together nicely. The link on that thread to the original website is broke, so I don't know if tangofox is still around.
Well I'm all for it as long as the scum suckers scrutinize the First Amendment, find no mention of electronic press, and therefore exclude TV, Radio, Hollywood, porno and the Internet from First Amendment protections. (/sarcasm)
The 1st Amendment is an individual right.
The 3rd Amendment is an individual right.
The 4th and 5th Amendments are individual right.
SO we're supposed to believe the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right?
Excellent reply.
#1 Individual persons have "rights" which come from God/Natural Law.
#2 Collective groups, eg governments, have "powers" which are delegated to them by Constitutions ... or Supreme Courts which don't understand #1. There is no such thing as "States Rights". Those who mistakenly use that term do their own side a disservice.
#3 In addition to "rights" from God possessed by individual persons, CITIZENS have privileges not possessed by non-citizens and not possessed by those who don't meet the criteria of a "law". Thus, there is no "right to vote". Voting is a privilege. If voting were a "right" then children who have the "right" to life could vote. But it is constitutional to exclude children from the privilege of voting. Likewise, other classes of people can be constitutionally excluded from any privilege by law.
The whole purpose of that "equal protection of the law" Constitutional amendments was to prevent discrimination based on previous condition of servitude in regards to privileges granted or withheld by law. That is why this constitutional amendment is separate from the one overturning the previous "Great Compromise" of principle in the 1/3 person clause of the constitution. Clearly remember that the "Great Compromise" was from the start recognized and labeled as a compromise of the truth.
Bang!
nice to see an organ of the government admit to the painfully obvious and self-evident facts for a change.
There is no such thing as "States Rights". Those who mistakenly use that term do their own side a disservice.
AGREED! States have "Powers", but do not have "Rights". If so, it brings into the Constitution the concept of "collective" and the Constitution, to its great credit, is a document that refutes the concept of "collective" rights into human affairs. When the Constitution mentions "Rights", it is always in reference to "the people", "person" or "persons". When the Federal or State governments are referenced, the noun is "Powers". "Powers are also reserved to "the people" in the 9th. and 10th. Amendments, but any "Rights" of a government entity are never mentioned in the Constitution because there are not any.
In short, a "Right", under our Federal Constitution, cannot exist as collective.
Uhhh...What is 3) all the above and then some?
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.