Posted on 02/08/2007 6:58:20 PM PST by Copernicus
That's funny, coming from someone who discounts all proof pointing to the unmistakable fact that the BOR placed restrictions on the Federal government.
The Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.
Kinda makes you a bald faced liar right there.
The Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to regulate the State militias, or to regulate arms...in fact, it denies the Federal government the ability to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms.
The Constitution does not prohibit the States from regulating the militias, or guns for that matter, so the right to regulate militias and guns is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
THAT is the Supreme law of the land, and it is completely consistent with my point.
The Constitutions of the several States had dealt with the issue of bearing arms and the militias prior to the creation of the Federal government via the Federal Constitution, so there was NO NEED to involved the Federal government in the issue at all.
They certainly did not wish to create a law that effectively took control of the issue of militias and guns away from the States by crafting a law that nullified their own Constitutions.
The Second Amendment effectively took the Federal government out of the issue and left it in the hands of the several State governments.
Wrong. Pretty much across the board. Are you SURE you are reading the US Constitution?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. St. George Tucker. 1803
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle 1829.
The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. James Madison 1833.
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Tenche Coxe 1788
You've got nothing but an empty hat.
Your claim that he was a Founding Father was shown to be false.
Then your substitute claim that he was in the Constitutional Convention was shown to be false.
Then your new substitute claim that he was in the "convention" that wrote the Bill of Rights was shown to be false.
So now you're down to pleading that he went to a local conference that sent a out a letter on the subject of the Bill of Rights. But even there, you left out the fact that the other members rejected his ideas. And that he signed off in favor of an abandoned version of the Second Amendment that didn't even mention the right to keep and bear arms.
Your dishonest and rapidly changing position wound up having all the weight of a fart in a strong wind.
Poor little Roscoe troll. Still can't bet anything right. Not even your attempt at slander.
Duh indeed. In 1789 the anti-federalist Gallatin was at a convention to revise a state constitution.
Lie, squirm, then try to bluster your out. Never changes.
Admit it. You have no clue who all this works.
And Gallatin was in neither.
Lie, squirm, then try to bluster your out. Never changes.
Lie. Twist. Distort. That's all you've got Roscoe. You are just another stupid little gun hating lib-tard troll.
I suppose Joe Story had no clue what he was talking about either. LOL...
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. Tenche Coxe 1789.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle 1829.
What these constitutionally challenged morons don't realize about the Miller case is that if the right was a collective one possessed by the States the court would have refused to hear the case becuase Miller wouldn't have had standing as an individual.
Then there is the fact that the second amendment is in the section of the constitution delaing with individual rights and not in the section that deals specifically with the militia.
Or the fact that the right clearly mentions "people."
One could go on. With respect to incorporation, the opinion incase out of the 5th Circuit pretty much is the blueprint for incorporation. It is a good read but way over their heads.
It isn't worth your time to try to point facts out to any of them.
I know this. Heck, I've pointed the futility of it out before. Playing to the gallery. ;-)
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. Tenche Coxe 1789.
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Tenche Coxe 1788
FReegards...
None Dare Call it Treason.
The Preamble says that the Bill of Rights imposes restrictions on the Federal government, the people who ratified the Bill of Rights said that its purpose was to set restrictions on the Federal government, the Courts agree with the fact that until the ratification of the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights imposed restrictions on the Federal government.
So, no...you are demonstrably wrong in having failed to do anything beyond repeating the same crap over and over, and posting nothing beyond personal attacks when what you need to post is support for your argument.
None of the statements posted are part of the U.S. Constitution Dead.
"No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature."
BECAUSE THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON CONGRESS BUT NOT STATE LEGISLATURES!!!!!!!
Your own posted statement supports my argument.
You don't read well...do you?
"But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
WHY WOULD HE SAY THAT THE AMENDMENT "MAY BE APPEALED TO" IF IT ALREADY APPLIED TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS???????
Your own post proves my point.
I've posted Madison's words from the debates surrounding the introduction of the Bill of Rights to Congress, they clearly state that the BOR imposes restrictions on the Federal government, and there are no mentions whatsoever in the debates of it applying to the States, in fact, it says the exact opposite.
I've posted the preamble to the Bill of Rights that CLEARLY details that the BOR imposes restrictions on the Federal government, and makes no mention whatsoever that these restrictions apply to the States, in fact, it says the exact opposite.
I've posted long-standing case law from the Supreme Court of The United States which clearly state that the BOR imposes restrictions on the Federal government.
You on the other hand, post a treatise from a Philadelphia lawyer that KINDS of agrees with your outlook on the BOR.
This is similar to us arguing over whether the Holocaust really happened or not, with me posting pictures of the bodies, the camps, statements from eye witnesses, and testimony from the Doctor's Trials at Nuremberg, while you post editorials from The Journal of Historical Review, the largest anti-Jewish propaganda publication in the world, trying to support your point.
It says no such thing. Sorry.
"But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it,
Missed that again did you?
No, I didn't miss it, you just have problems with reading comprehension.
Why would he say "may be appealed to" if the Amendment already applied?
Because he conceded that the Amendment only applied to the Federal government, and it required appealing to in order to have it applied to the States. Appeals are not dictates.
Now...he's a lawyer who was not at the ratification debates, and you're arguing that he's right, and that James Madison, the man who introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, was wrong on the intent of the document.
Laughable.
You can't be serious. Are you really THAT stupid? That dishonest? Which is it? Next you'll be saying "shall not be infringed" means that it's perfectly ok for government to "infringe" as "infringe" doesn't mean "infringe".
The statement quite clearly says that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right from both Federal and State infringement. That the inclusion of the Second as part of the Supreme Law of the Land may be APPEALED to should anyone try and take it from you.
Your idiotic attempts to make it mean anything else are little more than your vaporous, lib-tard imaginings.
The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. James Madison 1833.
Heck, he'd probably want us to shoot gun grabbers like you... Be glad we're a bit more civilized.
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.