Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
Well, so much for "keep an AR-15". This is called federalism.
You seem not to like the concept. You seem to be wanting some sort of nationwide protection similar to your state. Keep in mind that you may end up with some sort of nationwide protection similar to New York.
tell me one state where an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not protected. You can't.
I did. And you walked right by it without breaking stride.
You can't say a state protects a right to keep and bear arms ... and then limit that "protection" only to those arms which the state does protect, overlooking those it doesn't.
"You can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black" doesn't cut it.
Much the same thing happens in Calif. Our rights to own/buy/sell & carry arms has been infringed beyond all reasonable bounds, -- by 'majority rule' advocates, - like those you see posting here.
They make the ludicrous claim that when people form a society, they can decide which of our inalienable rights they will protect and to what extent.
This warped view, that our basic rights to life, liberty, or property are subject to the will of a majority is a socialistic communitarian dream.
- It's a political disease these fellas are infected with. Poor them.
Our basic rights are inherent and inalienable. They come from no person or government, and therefor cannot be infringed/prohibited.
-- the various levels of government in the USA have been delegated the powers to reasonably regulate, with due process of law, various aspects of owning property and living a life of liberty.
"-- [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . ."
Justice Harlan's comment has never been rationally refuted by any of our 'poor you' folks on this forum. -- Pity them.
ping
I never said "all arms" or "every weapon that ctdonath2 considers to be arms". Every state protects arms. Every state has reasonable restrictions on arms. Some states are more restrictive than others. But every state protects a right to keep and bear arms.
Did you read the quote from the Parker decision that says a government may reasonably restrict arms? Do you want a link to it?
Notice how the majority rule mindset simply justifies State prohibitions/infringements, [on assault weapons for instance] as 'reasonable restrictions'.
Socialistic majority rule theory is a political disease.
I am. Check the Minnesota Constitution.
Also, the majority opinion in Parker says clearly that militia service and utility are not required for a particular "arm" to be protected by the Second.
You just read the dissent portion and tossed out the rest didn't you... Figures...
Yep. You caught ‘em lying, so they moved the goal post. They switched from no protection to not total protection at all times at every location for all persons.
Check Minnesota law.
Poor you.
So you're saying I'm a liar. You're saying that the state of Minnesota does not protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Do I understand you correctly?
" Also, the majority opinion in Parker says clearly that militia service and utility are not required for a particular "arm" to be protected by the Second."
I never argued they didn't.
I did state, however, that the Parker court said that a government may impose reasonable restrictions on the protections of the second amendment. Furthermore, I stated the Parker court said that the second amendment doesn't protect the right to concealed carry.
You still want the U.S. Supreme Court to define the second amendment for every citizen?
We weren't talking anything exotic like WMDs, howitzers or even cannons - which were, RP, the arms which Parker noted might be subject to regulation, and left open to relevant discussion in another case - the court did NOT render that as part of the verdict (which, as dicta you are fond of noting doesn't apply), while the verdict DID clearly note that COMMON arms (which would include the AR-15) cannot be regulated out of existence.
We WERE referring to common arms (ex.: AR-15), as impacted by very reasonable circumstances (ex.: moving from one state to another).
Unfortunately, your logic is amounting to "so long as SOMETHING is legal, like muskets, the gov't can regulate practically out of existence any kind of weapon". If this is your intention (and I know it is), you have a very strange & twisted notion of the concept of "rights". If the government can, practically without boundaries, dictate the extent to which a "right" can be exercised, then it is no right.
An M4-style AR-15 is a common firearm, completely legal in the majority of states. Simply buy one and take it into NY, and you're committing multiple felonies. Your accusation of a lie is thus proven wrong. Care to move the goalposts again?
Paulson and Mojave are playing games with targeted narrow examples and semantice. They know damn well the Constitution applies to “the PEOPLE”. Who are the people? They are all the people in the States. The idea that one Amendment or other does not apply to the PEOPLE of the states in one case, such as the 2nd, as it so clearly does in others, such as the 1st or 4th, is clearly laughable. I will have nothing more to do with such liars and spreaders of disinformation.
I am fully aware that some courts and some court rulings have failed to uphold the Constitution. The 9th Circuit violates the US Constitution routinely. In such cases that are referred to the SCOTUS, they are almost always overturned. In cases, such as in Proposition 209 which outlawed California from providing basic services to illegal immigrants, the California government refused to appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS and therefore, it is now law that California must provide services to illegal immigrants, even though the governments failure to impliment Prop 209 appears clearly unconstitutional.
paulson and mojave are just having a great deal of fun here acting as if our RKBA rights are secure and available to all equally. Not once have they addressed the numberous references to people who have their rights severely infringed, whereby the States are completely incapable of proteting the RKBA rights for US citizens in cities that successfully violate those rights, in complete violation of the US constitution’s 2nd amendment.
For all intents and purposes, they are trolls on the issue. Hell with them.
Troll. Gadfly. Slave. Serf.
Bow to your masters. Just don’t make me bow to the same. People like you are why I have been losing my God-given rights for a lifetime.
Chattal. Vassal. Peon.
paulson has been completely out of context, citing, as if in a vacuum, only the phrases he wants to support his preposterous claims and completely ignoring what inconveniently disputes his points. He’s a troll...
He would have me believe that the 2nd Amendment only bars federal law from banning guns. As if every state could ban all firearms if they chose to do so. He knows damn well that would be unconstitutional. He knows damn well that the states can’t institute slavery just becuase the 13th Amendment bans the federal government from instituting it. Just like he knows the “ROE” decision prevented any state from banning access to abortion.
That is what the entire Unites States Constitution does. It lists among powers granted to government, the rights of ALL OF THE PEOPLE in the several states, lower court rulings to the contrary notwithstanding.
He cites court rulings as though they are infallable. “Roe vs Wade” is one such an illegal ruling that had absolutely no basis in US Constitutional Law. None. I guess he would argue that “Roe vs. Wade” clearly upholds a constitutional right to an abortion - yet that right is not even hinted at in any way, shape or form in the constitution - and therefore becomes the resonsiblity of each state to decide, assuming that the unborn baby’s Constitutional right to live is not violated, which it most certainly is.
paulson and mojave are great manipulators but lousy debators. They are not merely trolls, but completely tranparent and not worth the time to respond to. You are wasting your finger-typing energy.
Have a beer and know that fools as these are just helping the socialists win their race to ultimate dictatorship. I grieve over the impact people like paulson and mojave have on society. Not good. Not at all.
Constitution trumps law.
Hence my post so long ago that paulson would argue that the letter, while not the spirit, of the law was met solely if all guns were banned except rifles chambered for .22 long rifle cartridges. That is paulson’s ultimate definition of a state protecting RKBA rights. As long as you have the right to own bulky item that fires a small, weak cartridge, your constitutional right to bear arms has been protected, in his carefully parsed phrase.
NOWHERE has he ever responded to the numerous correct referrences to how severely many people’s rights have been infringed in many locations, with absolutely no protection by the state law they are subjected to.
The man is a snake and not an honest one at that.
You lie, he refutes you with a documented fact; you lie again, I refute you with a documented fact. Repeat.
Thanks for the non sequitur.
Our citizenry. Versus your worship of centralized government.
What he notably forgets: it is the SPIRIT of the law that ultimately prevails, not the letter. Laws & government exist only insofar as people are willing to cooperate. Even if, by strict letter of law, we are wrong and RP is right, he seems to forget who has what and why.
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.