Posted on 08/04/2007 10:30:58 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
“Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun.”
Umm....no they don’t. For cars/motorcycles you just take tests (paper & driving). For boats, many states do not require training or testing to use a boat/pwc unless you are under a certain age.
BOO! :) :) :)
“How’s the pheasant hunting in your area? (kansas?)”
I have no idea. I live in the burbs, right outside of KC. I only hunt RINOs in my neck of the woods.
That is clearly nonsense, given that some states had official government religions; if anything, the First Amendment protected those state religions from the federal government.
Plus, the first amendment starts out, "Congress shall make no law ...". It says nothing about the states making no law.
The second and third amendments don't apply to the states even today. Neither does the seventh. Neither does the Grand Jury indictment clause of the fifth.
Nonsense, indeed.
I shall honor you with my new tagline.....
Aw h***. Now that is called, reach out and touch someone!!!
“They’re starting to wake up in CT!!! I think that this crime has made it perfectly clear to people in CT that evil does exist and it needs to be stopped - with ALL available tools - including guns.”
____________________________________________________________
Purely unscientific poll here. This CT citizen sat down and asked my wife how many people we know here in CT who have a firearm in their home. We made up a list of almost 75 homes. Our list says that over 70% of the people we know have firearms in their homes. Don’t forget CT is home of Colt, Ruger, Winchester, Marlin, Remington, Charter Arms, PTR and a few others....
The 10th Amendment specifies that some powers are prohibited to States by the US Constitution. The power to infringe on our right to own and carry arms is prohibited by the 2nd.
Beware the man who uses 'majority rule' rhetoric to claim that State/local gov't can ignore that Amendment.
That is clearly nonsense,
Read the 1st. It is not "nonsense".
given that some states had official government religions;
Sure, some States had government established religions, and Congress could make no laws respecting those establishments. -- Nor could they, or any official in any State or local government [read Article VI] ignore the supremacy of our Constitution and its Amendments, "-- amy Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
if anything, the First Amendment protected those state religions from the federal government.
Yep, and it also protected our rights to free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress; -- from federal, state or local infringements.
As does the 2nd.
Why do you disagree on these basic constitutional principles and call them nonsense?
Do you support the clear nonsense that the 2nd does not apply to state or local governments?
You ought to quote the more important part of that discussion - where the Cruikshank Court states that the right to bear arms is not dependant upon the Constitution for it’s existence.
That is “fundamental, individual right” language - and it is also still good law today.
Oh, and you ought to post a disclaimer that you are a collective rights guy, instead of the misleading stuff you post regarding the second amendment.
The claim was made, among other things, that the First Amendment, when written, always applied to all levels of government. I stated that was nonsense.
The First Amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a government religion. It does not forbid states from doing so. Unless you want to argue that the First Amendment "applied" to the states in that it protected their own government-established religions from the federal government, I don't see how it can be considered to have been applicable to states.
Rather than quoting the most important part, I chose instead to quote the most relevant.
"Oh, and you ought to post a disclaimer that you are a collective rights guy, instead of the misleading stuff you post regarding the second amendment."
In 1792, did the second amendment protect the RKBA of all individuals in the United States? I rest my case.
And you're going to lecture me that it's a “fundamental, individual right”?
No, their intended purpose is to kill things. The attendant fear is merely a beneficial side effect.
I’m stealin’ that for my tagline.
if anything, the First Amendment protected those state religions from the federal government.
Yep, and it also protected our rights to free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress; -- from federal, state or local infringements. As does the 2nd.
Why do you disagree on these basic constitutional principles and call them nonsense?
The claim was made, among other things, that the First Amendment, when written, always applied to all levels of government. I stated that was nonsense.
The fact that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not mean that our other individual rights can be ignored by levels of government other than Congress.
The First Amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a government religion.
You are simply misunderstanding that clause. "-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" forbids the feds from making laws respecting existing State religions, - or any others.
It does not forbid states from doing so.
Wrong. Utah tried to enter the Union for forty years with an established 'state religion'. -- Congress forbid Utah's statehood on that basis.
Try reading some history.
I'll ask again, - do you support the clear nonsense that the 2nd does not apply to state or local governments?
It isn’t really necessary to post a disclaimer about being a collective rights type, — as the claim being made, - [that only white males of militia age had that right in 1792] is well established as a bit of modern socialistic agitprop.
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.