Posted on 07/06/2007 4:34:01 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
L
Then you do believe that an amendment protecting the right to own and read books, if it mentioned the importance of a well-educated electorate, would permit the prohibition of books which are not political?
The definition of "the people" is the crux of the debate.
Now, if you're going to insist "the people" is everyone, fine. Of course you can't support that, so I can understand why you want to take back your ball and go home.
But if you expect me to take you seriously, you'll have to do much better than that.
It says so such a thing. Good Lord, that's a stupid comment, even for you.
That’s my feeling as well. While I think we’re in better position now than in decades, and would be cautiously optimistic, I’d want one more reliably Constitutional vote before I’d actively wish for a SCOTUS interpretation.
Who are "the people" in the second amendment? In your opinion.
So you maintain that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is not what is protected, but rather a constitutionally narrowed right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
Why didn't the Founders simply establish a right to keep and bear arms for Militias? Why the reference to a pre-existing right of the people? By your reasoning, one implied result of the Second Amendment, by omission, is the power of the federal government to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms EXCEPT for purposes related to Militia service.
As used in the U.S. Constitution, "the people" referred to a particular group. Or maybe you think it meant every individual?
You are, of course, referring to the second amendment?
The vast majority of the courts have ruled that it protects a collective right -- the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia shall not be infringed by the federal government. That's what I'm saying.
As to this individual pre-existing right to keep and bear arms you're referring to, that right is protected by each state's constitution.
Anyone who doesn’t work for the government, and to a lesser extent, even those people as respects their private lives, because they’re citizens too.
So you’re saying that because some courts, government employees, make a finding which favors the government, it MUST be right, even if it cannot be squared with the merits, as interpreted by a non-government-employee of average intelligence???
I’m not posting this to take a position the issue as much as to chide you for relying on court findings as if they could supersede the merits.
Do you mean Milita members? They did. The second amendment protects that right from federal infringement.
"Why the reference to a pre-existing right of the people?"
Again, who are "the people"? You refuse to answer that question. If you answered it, you'd know. But you can't because it would demonstrate that I'm correct.
"By your reasoning, one implied result of the Second Amendment, by omission, is the power of the federal government to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms EXCEPT for purposes related to Militia service."
Assuming they had the power to do so, of course. Do they have that power or are you just rambling?
Yea, citizens
Or maybe you think it meant every individual?
Every individual citizen. And don't bother, I read your crap all morning. The issue of white, male property owners was settled long ago. What foolishness. And now "the people" means militia men? Utter nonsense. If the authors meant "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they would have damn well said so. But they didn't, your ridiculous linguistic gymnastics notwithstanding.
Thank you for your response. Because you had the guts to answer (unlike some of the spineless wonders on this thread), I'll be nice.
When the second amendment was written, it only protected the right for white male citizens, 18-45 years of age. Non-whites (slaves) were not protected. Non-citizens, women, and children were not protected under the second amendment.
"The people" in the second amendment did not mean "all persons". When the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of an individual, they referred to "person", or "citizen" or "he/him".
Actually, I like my definition better. Citizens NOT employed by the government Why would government employees need their rights protected Constitutionally, except FROM that same government, as respects their own private lives?
I'm simply saying that if the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to look at the second amendment, they are going to be heavily influenced by past lower court decisions.
There are 11 Circuit Courts plus the DC Circuit. Out of those twelve courts, ten have ruled a collective right. Of the 30-40 second amendment cases heard by all those courts, only two were ruled an individual right.
Now, you're asking if those ten different Circuit Courts ruling in those 30-something different gun cases could all be wrong and the other two were right? Sure. That's possible.
Well, if the point you’re making is with respect to what’s likely to happen, you’re probably right, and if so, that’s most unfortunate in my opinion, because it would empower the government, which necessarily comes at the expense of those of us with honest jobs.
Well, at least you agree that "the people" doesn't mean "all persons". I'll settle for that from you.
1. The militia act of 1792 was moot as soon as it was employed, just for the fact that it was never enforced; in practice anyone who could grab a gun could fight and did, occasionally some in male drag, I might add. Any war that was ever fought by the US included participants not within those age groups, particularly the Spanish-American and Civil wars) to WWII. My own father, who joined the US Army in 1939 at the age of 14 , become a highly decorated paratrooper. ALL former military, further, are considered in the inactive reserves.
2. The real intent of the Founding Fathers on gun ownership was dealt with at length and very specifically by James Madison in the Federalist Papers, as well as by others of that period, including Jefferson.
If the intent of the Constitution were upheld there would be NO gun laws, except those restricting felons.
In my honest opinion virtually all gun laws are unconstitutional and the states are forbidden from writing and enforcing those of their own by virtue of the Constitution.
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.