Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.
Grahamnesty and McCain will still confirm her.
If that were the case then would not it render the text internally contradictory?
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
From where would spring the necessary militia if every state was free to ban it's very inception?
Amen.
I recognized historical facts.
This woman is nuts. How come no one ever asks these nuts ‘’how would the 2nd have to be worded so as to mean to you, what the rest of the country has always assumed it meant.’’
>about the next nominee after she gets shot down...
Worry about her. - she will be confirmed in record time.
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,....
The storm clouds are gathering and the rest will do nothing.
Unfortunately, contacting my Senators (Feinstein & Boxer) to tell them to vote against confirmation would be like banging my head against a brick wall - I’d only experience the pain of seeing this partisan hack appointed anyway.
CONTEXT???
There's a confirmation hearing going on for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States...
What a disaster. She’s the worst pick for SCOTUS I can recall. Complete contempt for the constitution, and she’ll lie, lie, lie to give the senators a reason to vote for her.
Obama himself, although a constitutional scholar
Stop, Please. That's Wrong. The Kenyan is not, I repeat not, a "constitutional scholar".
At the Univ of Chicago he, and I quote him, "taught constitutional law". (Chi Sun-Times). He also gave, on occasion, 'Lectures' on the constitution.
There's a HUGH difference as almost anyone can "teach" a college class(1) or give "Lectures". Look at Bill Ayers and his pos 'wife' Bernadine Dorhn. Plus, both of these things Geraldo Rivera could also do, and we all know he's no scholar :-)
This whole 'scholar' thing got twisted and spun by the MSM and Barry and his handlers let it continue on. It now has a life all its own and has become 'fact' by repetition of a 'white lie'.
'Scholar', constitutional or otherwise, is a Title Obama never earned and for sure, does NOT deserve. I'd bet the average FReeper is more qualified to be called a Constitutional Scholar than Obama.
No offense meant and this 'rant' is not directed at you. We just can't let this 'scholar' lie go on.
(1) The requirements to be a "Teacher" in an IL Elementary School are more stringent. This I know from personal experience.
So your claim is that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, the most controversial clause in the amendment at the time of its adoption *precisely because* everyone knew that it would make the individual protections of the Bill of Rights applicable against the states, *does not* grant the People the individual protections afforded by the Bill of Rights against infringement by the states? So states can, say, take your private property without having to pay you just compensation? And you want a Supreme Court that allows states to take private property without having to pay the owner just compensation? Wy word.
So your claim is that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, the most controversial clause in the amendment at the time of its adoption *precisely because* everyone knew that it would make the individual protections of the Bill of Rights applicable against the states, *does not* grant the People the individual protections afforded by the Bill of Rights against infringement by the states? So states can, say, take your private property without having to pay you just compensation? And you want a Supreme Court that allows states to take private property without having to pay the owner just compensation? My word.
She isn’t even trying to hide the fact she is lying. Good God, she contradicts herself and makes comments that are against her own acts and decisions.
No. But congratulations on constructing the most convoluted, incoherent and disingenuous straw man argument I've ever seen.
Get stopped driving drunk and find out.
Those are minor provisions of amendments which are otherwise incorporated. Even the third amendment was incorporated in a second circuit opinion. And the 1886 opinion you site is before modern incorporation doctrine and was effectively overruled by Gitlow. It’s an unsustainable argument that the Second Amendment isn’t incorporated.
I meant to reply to you with my last post. Please see above.
Gitlow had NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Please don't invent "facts."
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ...”
You have strategically cut off the rest of that statement. I’ll fix it for you.
-so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
This statement is not dealing with the second amendment, or the RKBA in general. It is dealing with the constitutionally federal power to call forth a militia. What the court is saying here, in a modern context, is that the states cannot unilaterally disband their National Guard forces because this would deprive the Federal Government of it’s right to federalize these forces. The plaintiff argued that he has the right to have a weapon because as an able bodied male within the correct age range he is automatically a part of the militia. The court was ruling that denying the plaintiff his ability to carry a weapon or to form a private military outfit was not unconstitutional because it did not deprive the United States of it’s ability to call forth state troops for the common defense.
You have to remember that the original intent of the constitution was that the federal government should have no, or at least a very tiny military and should rely upon the military forces of the States from time to time to provide for the common defense of the nation.
My view on the subject: Congress should not be able to ban, restrict, require the registration of, or tax any type of weapon whatsoever. Congress should not have the constitutional authority to ban artillery, cruise missiles, or atomic bombs. This authority should be left to the States or to lower levels of government as the State may wish. I am a supporter of State’s Rights as far as is constitutionally allowed. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with me holding in MILLER that the right to keep and bear arms is only applicable to the arms necessary for the state to keep a well regulated militia.
We find ourselves in real danger when we don’t understand the basics of 2nd Amendment law and Supreme Court precidents. We were bitten by this when the village of Morton Grove IL banned all handguns. The ban was brought all the way up to the Supreme Court who refused to hear it and let the ban stand. (Morton Grove has since repealed the law.) For the text of the 7th Circuit Ruling that the Supreme Court allowed to stand:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quilici.html
Remember folks, Presser lost his case before the Supreme Court. If the Court had indeed affirmed in Presser that there was an individual right to own firearms he would have won it on those grounds alone.
We cannot continue to argue that PRESSER, or MILLER, or any other case constitutes an affirmation of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court have ruled repeatedly that this isn’t the case. Instead, regardless of whether we believe in the State’s Rights or Individual Rights argument, we must press for the Supreme Court to specifically overturn the previous decisions as improperly decided.
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.