Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
There are rights that you have as a member of a group that you do not have as an individual (ie., not part of the group). A union member, for example. If that was your question.
The subject was state Militias -- let's not get too far away from that.
The lower federal courts have ruled that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as members of a state Militia. That has been called by some as the "collective rights" interpretation of the second amendment.
That means that if you are not a member of a state militia, the second amendment does not protect your individual right to keep and bear arms -- THAT protection is given by your state constitution.
Militia's were merely one stated reason for individual RKBA, not the sole purpose.
Ooops ping;-)
Better late than never ping!
Well, if CA [or the feds] "-- in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this [2nd] amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. --"
That's what Rawles wrote bob, yet you imagine he didn't.
Your mind is playing strange tricks on you if you think the quote above backs your position here:
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, they MAY appeal to the second amendment. And the U.S. Supreme Court MAY overturn it.
Thanks for conceding Rawles point. You admit you were wrong.
Then again, some future liberal U.S. Supreme Court may NOT overturn it.
We will deal with that when/if it happens.
But nowhere does the author say that California cannot do it.
Quibble if you must. --- The point is bob, that our Constitution says that CA cannot 'do it'.
I was right.
No, you are factually/constitutionally wrong, and you imagine your opinions can make you right. Our constitution overrules you.
First, it's not my "view" -- it inconveniently (for you) happens to be a fact. Second, my facts come come lower federal court opinions, not the ACLU.
You say the second amendment protects an individual RKBA. But when asked to support this statement, your only response to date has been to say "It should protect it, and if it's not protected then it violates the constitution".
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?
The fact that you won't even admit it IS just anti-gun bias and fiction is why I occasionally through out the pejorative "troll" at you.
You know you are wrong, when measured against historical documentation. But because some liberal asshat judge said it, that is the end of it for you. It may as well be writ in stone.
Even though "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" is also in that same clause. A judge can no more "legally" change the definition of the 2A than they can rule against it. But they did. And no one holds them to account as the power structure likes it that way. It gives them control they are not entitled too. Which is fine with you apparently.
Stop cheerleading this perversion. Seriously.
"-- In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
Paulsen's view, -- straight from the ACLU playbook.
First, it's not my "view" -- it inconveniently (for you) happens to be a fact.
First you admit it is your "opinion". Now you claim your opinion is a "fact". Bizarre reasoning.
Second, my facts come come lower federal court opinions, not the ACLU.
No one is disputing that the lower courts have made such opinions. Under dispute is court & ACLU "interpretations" about "the rights of the people, collectively,". Which again, you admit, - bizarrely enough.
You say the second amendment protects an individual RKBA. But when asked to support this statement, your only response to date has been to say "It should protect it, and if it's not protected then it violates the constitution".
Total bull bobbie. - You and I have been arguing this issue in detail since you first started spouting the "collective rights" line, years ago.
-- I've probably 'cited' at one time or another virtually every fact contained in reports like these:
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/ -
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?
Indeed, what more can be said? -- You rant opinions, while I quote the facts about our constitution.
Is this what you're relying on? You ARE aware that some future liberal Presidency can have their Justice Department write their own interpretation. What then, tpaine?
You're saying that you believe the Executive Branch of the federal government when they tell you what your rights are when it comes to arms? Kinda like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop, doncha think?
Total bull bobbie. - You and I have been arguing this issue in detail since you first started spouting the "collective rights" line, years ago.
-- I've probably 'cited' at one time or another virtually every fact contained in reports like these:
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.
Is this what you're relying on?
I'm citing the FACTS in such reports, bobbie, versus the "collective" opinions you spout from sources like the ACLU.
You ARE aware that some future liberal Presidency can have their Justice Department write their own interpretation. What then, tpaine?
Then bobbie, - depending on how you people ~act~ upon your "interpretations", it may be time [as Claire Wolfe put it] to straighten you collectivists out.
You're saying that you believe the Executive Branch of the federal government when they tell you what your rights are when it comes to arms?
Don't hype me bob. The facts noted in that report are valid, regardless of who 'tells' them.
Kinda like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop, doncha think?
Cute.
That's it! That's all you got! What kind of an argument is that?
Indeed, what more can be said? -- You rant opinions, make cute comments, --- while I quote the facts about our constitution.
The Second Amendment unquestionably protects the right of individual Americans to own firearms.
I wonder if qouting a currrent Senator would be good as Amicus for a defense? Not that I am currently doing anything wrong. To the best of my knowledge, all my stuff is "legal".
My uncle, who lived with us when I was younger, thought he was a chicken. We would have gotten him psychiatric help but we needed the eggs.
(rim shot)
41 posted on 07/17/2006 1:21:59 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
Ok... it's an old joke. But you gotta admit it's funny. ;-)
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson"That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society." -- Alexander Hamilton
"But the constitution of the United States has not left the right of Congress to employ the necessary means, for the execution of the powers conferred on the government, to general reasoning. To its enumeration of powers is added that of making 'all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States, or in any department thereof.' " -- United States Supreme Court, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
"Each house of Congress possesses this natural right of governing itself, and consequently of fixing it's own times and places of meeting, so far as it has not been abridged by the law of those who employ them, that is to say, by the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
"It has been frequently held by this court that the grant of citizenship is not inconsistent with the right of Congress to continue to exercise this authority by legislation deemed adequate to that end." -- United States Supreme Court, BRADER V. JAMES, 246 U.S. 88 (1918)
None said it better than Alan Keyes 6 years ago. "Educating the defenders of Liberty"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18696
Worth re-reading.
Some would,(scary, isn't it.) or the adjustable rate mortgage, (not to mention credit cards), would never have happened.
I'll take the tree line, thanks. From the cheap seats, 'civilization' doesn't look so civilized. Funny how the 'centers of culture and civilization' are the worst hotbeds of criminal activity, and with all those laws, too.
Yeah, funny how criminals don't prefer stealing from the poor natives in remote locations.
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.