Posted on 04/10/2007 10:51:15 AM PDT by neverdem
In a nutshell you've outlined a communitarian 'states rights' view of our Constitution.
But get this; -- if the feds want to control guns [using this same view], -- they simply make a 'finding' that the commerce clause applies. -- It's really a neat system; stroke of the pen, make a 'law'...
Gotta love the way the socialistic mind operates.
Gaaaaaaa!
The Second Amendment was not written to protect the rights of "sportsmen" or "hunters", but to protect the rights of every American citizen! Therefore every American citizen ought to be very concerned that a clear, basic, fundamental right can be so easily trampled by our government!
One of the best ways to “vote” regarding the Second Amendment it to buy a gun. Everyone in the United States who is eligible should buy a gun and learn how to use it. This will send a clear message to Democrats, marginal Republicans such as Guiliani, and crooks.
The Second Amendment says the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, but this has been violated repeatedly. No one wants crooks and incompetents to have guns, so some safety precautions make sense, just as they make sense about driving a car, which is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands. But making it impossible for ordinary PEOPLE to have guns will just ensure that only criminals and the government have them.
Would you rather discuss freedom of religion?
Not at all.
I’m simply stating that your logic on the 2nd & 14th amendments could also easily be applied to the 1st amendment...as they both refer to ‘the people’ in the same context, and therefore the 1st being subject to the same truncation of rights at the state level as the 2nd, by virtue of the 14th.
I also posted a theoretical potential outcome of your interpretation of the above. My question to you is if that’s how you really believe the framers and Bingham intended it to work...and if such a theoretical outcome would be legal, based on your interpretation.
Whether or not you believe that it’s legal, doesn’t imply you’d agree with it being used in those terms - please include your opinion on that if you desire. Just that, legally, it could be. That’s all I’m asking you.
Not a trick question, not loaded, and not a trap. Do you really feel the framers intended this logic?
The first amendment does not refer to "the people" when it mentions freedom of religion, so I have no idea what "context" you're talking about.
But, assuming it did, certainly a prisoner would have a protected right to speech or to practice his religion but not the right to keep and bear arms. What context are you talking about?
"My question to you is if that’s how you really believe the framers and Bingham intended it to work..."
Not even Bingham knows what Bingham meant.
The first eight amendments, as written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the states only applied to the federal government. By that I mean that the federal government could not infringe on those rights.
The states could, and did. The states were only restricted by their state constitutuion.
You mention religion. Connecticut had a state-sponsored religion until 1818. Massachusetts had one until 1833.
And this is relevant to the topic, how?
Libertarians support the 2nd Amendment. Why would they vote for Dems?
As a general election strategy, the left avoided gun control like the plague. They actively promoted pro RKBA candidates. Now since last November's election results, they can't restrain their true nature. Witness this story and Far-reaching Gun Ban Would Cripple The Second Amendment -- McCarthy's bill to outlaw millions of guns
See comment# 43. Ask further questions as needed.
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.