Posted on 03/17/2008 10:45:40 AM PDT by EdReform
They won't come for them all at once, but they will act swiftly where they can. Just a few more "reasonable" restrictions and registration, then keep them in the armory, then final confiscation. All the while they will make examples of those who don't comply. This will keep most people going along to get along.
By the time they start the confiscation most Americans will be worse than ignorant of gun culture and most of the guns will be locked up at the armory. Those who would cry "from my cold dead hands" at this time will only be too easily accommodated as they will be alone and ostracized.
America will be Land of the Free no longer. Sorry to sound like a pessimist but history tells this story, not me. If this decision goes the wrong way enabling the above scenario then a massive groundswell must start immediately. Otherwise you can say bye-bye to your guns and/or your life.
APThe truth of the matter concerning the relationship of the 2nd and 14th Amendments is that the same authoritative evidence that shows that the 2nd A. protects our personal freedoms concerning firearms also shows that the USSC's idea of selective incorporation does not hold water, in my opinion.
Herald Sun
U.S.News
Patriot Post
Washington Post
Heritage Foundation
Wikipedia
More specifically, the BoR per se was not what the 14th A. applied to the states as the USSC's idea of selective incorporation leads us to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)(I've added Wikipedia to the above list as another institution that is helping to confuse the purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.)
In fact, not only does the wording of the 14th A. beg the question as to whether or not all of the Constitution's privileges and immunities were applied to the states, but John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had clarified that it does.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nThe reason that Bingham emphasized the first eight amendments, the federal BoR, in conjunction with the Constitution's privileges and immunities is because most of these privileges and immunities just happened to be defined in these amendments at the time that the 14th A. was made.
So regardless that the USSC has not yet officially incorporated all the privileges and immunities of the BoR into the 14th A., Bingham not only beat them to it, but had made it clear that all the Constitution's priviliges and immunities were indeed to be applied to the states, not just those in the BoR.
And since Bingham also read the first eight amendments, the 2nd A. included, as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states, there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
See the first eight amendments in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. The page is a part of one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
The bottom line concerning D.C. v. Heller is that the 14th A. has already decided this case in Heller's favor. So the reality of the situation is that gun elimination factions need to quit trying to rewrite constitutional history, as evidenced by the ignoring of the 14th A., in order to push their special-interest agenda on everybody. Instead, they need take the initiative to try to lead the states to exercise their Article V powers to amend the Constitution to allow for tighter gun control laws.
How, then, would the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause of Article 1, Section 8 have had any meaning, if the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms (not FIREarms, but ARMS, mind you) wasn't protected against federal government encroachment? Such Letters were, in fact, issued by the Congress in the War of 1812, and many privately armed (with multiple cannon) ships took part in helping the US Navy win the war on the seas against Britain.
Seems to me that Letters of Marque and Reprisal mean nothing if someone can't go out and buy a fully-armed warship. Of course, most of us couldn't do it even if the Feds wouldn't try to stop us, due to lack of money. But why couldn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett purchase and outfit their own carrier task forces, if they so desired? Why couldn't they or other individuals purchase smaller boats (say a cigarette boat armed with a quad-.50 or a 20mm minigun) for the same purpose? It seems to me that there is no legal reason whatsoever - just fear, fear that the common man won't tolerate being pushed around by the powers-that-be.
Molon Labe!
I don’t know if a boat that small can handle a weapon that large.
There is no such exclusion in the Constitution you are making up words out of whole cloth! It said simply the people! Where does it say specifically Adult, white male citizens. All Persons is THE PEOPLE! As I said before go back to English Class.
Ravenstar
The possession of military style (fully automatic) firearms by the citizenry doesn’t seem to have been nor currently is a problem for the Swiss, why should we be any different?
Seems to me that Letters of Marque and Reprisal would not be necessary if the right was protected.
"It seems to me that there is no legal reason whatsoever"
The Founders defined a well regulated Militia. A private militia does not qualify.
How about the U.S. Constitution?
Article I, Section 2 reads (in part), "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..." (my underline)
"The people" = the voters. Who voted in 1792? Adult, white, male citizens. They were "the people".
If you believe "the people" means something else, I'd like to hear it.
How about answering the question that was asked instead of dancing around it?
Well, no. The Founding Fathers were quite specific as to whom they were referring. If they meant a citizen they wrote "citizen". If they meant an indiviual they wrote "person". If they meant more than one person they wrote "persons" (not people).
For example, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 reads, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not ..." (Today, we would say, "... and vote by Ballot for two people").
"The people" referred to a select group on individuals -- the enfranchised body politic. These individuals were connected to the country -- they held office, they voted, they owned land -- and they had the most at stake. They had full rights.
We know who they are. Article I, Section 2 reads (in part), "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..." (my underline)
"The people" = the voters. Who voted in 1792? Adult, white, male citizens. They were "the people". Not all persons. Not even all citizens (women and children didn't vote).
What do you want? A f^&*ing 1792 dictionary?
I answered your question. I'm done. You want to believe "the people" means something else, go your merry ignorant way and leave me alone.
Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Ratification was completed on February 3, 1870
Article [XIX]
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Ratification was completed on August 18, 1920.
By your logic then freedom of speech, religion and assembly would only apply to white males. It is obvious this is not the case so stop the tortured verbal contortions. “The People” is construed to mean the same for all of the Constitution, not just how you want to dance around with it specifically for the Second Amendment.
Ravenstar
No you didn't, and yes you are.
No. That's not how the first amendment reads. Freedom of speech, the press, religion apply to all.
Freedom of assembly and the ability to petition the government were reserved to "the people".
Today’s the day.
Anybody know how soon we can expect any official releases? Transcripts? Audio?
“The People” are the same in the first, second and fourth amendments so you can’t pick and choose how you want define it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the term “The People” refers to different meanings in different Amendments. It isn’t for your convenience that it changes meaning. The slip of your credibility has now totally exploded into blinding nonsense.
Ravenstar
That is correct. I never meant to imply otherwise.
The reasons I went back to 1792 were that a) we had a well regulated Militia, b) the membership of the Militia was clearly defined in the Militia Act of 1792) and, c) "the people" were clearly defined in Article I, Section 2 as the enfranchised body politic.
To determine the original meaning of the Founding Fathers, we see that "the people" of the second amendment = "the people" of Article I, Section 2 = the enfranchised body politic (ie., the voters) = adult, white, male citizens = Militia members.
My conclusion from this is that the second amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms of those individuals in a well regulated Militia from federal infringement. It's an individual right exercised collectively (similar to voting).
If the right to keep and bear arms also encompassed hunting and self defense and other reasons, it would make no sense to limit the protection of this right to such a small group of individuals (less than 20% of the population in 1792). I would think the second amendment, in that case, would read, "the right of all free persons" or "the right of all citizens".
“A well regulated Militia was one that was organized, trained, disciplined, armed and accoutered with officers appointed by the state.” - RP
Not so fast - Private militias, without “State” appointments of officers are equally valid.
You are inventing a state requirement where there is none.
Please back your extraordinary claim that all valid militias had state appointed officers, or withdraw it.
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.