Posted on 01/10/2007 12:44:45 PM PST by looscnnn
Actually, the erosion of jury rights came about in part as an effort to assure equal protection. If someone in a community harmed an outsider whom nobody really liked, a jury of his peers may judge him far less harshly than someone who harmed a respected member of the community. I don't really know what the Founders would have thought of that. Allowing communities nearly carte blance to "protect their own" would cause the country to be fragmented into somewhat more isolated communities than is typically now the case, but I would expect that a desire for trade would cause communities to slowly open up. In many other circumstances, free markets are better that forced association at ending discrimination; I'm not sure the same wouldn't eventually have ended up being true here.
In any case, whatever the intention, the invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment to erode the right to be fully tried by one's peers has certainly had some bad effects. I don't know whether it was the best thing to do or not.
Angel Shamaya over at keepandbeararms.com should get the kudos then. It was off of his website that I got the link.
De nada. Packing.org still has the best State by State breakdown of carry laws if you are interested.
I see. And they had no similar concerns about freedom of speech being used by liars to refer to a "First amendment right to freedom of speech for education purposes"? Or concerns about any of the other amendments?
Nope. I don't buy it. Interesting theory though -- you just made it up?
Cooless. It's been a while since I've been over there. Guess it's time to visit again. :-) Thanks again.
I agree with your definiition(s) of a militia. Hell, you and a bunch of other guys can get together, arm yourselves, and call yourselves a miltia and I'd agree. I've got no problem whatsoever with the definition. We see eye-to-eye on that.
But that's not the argument. Once you have a militia, the argument is who protects your right to keep and bear arms? Not the second amendment. The second amendment protects the formation of a well regulated militia with officers appointed by the state from federal infringement.
The individual RKBA of you and your buddies is protected by your state and only by your state.
A good case that illustrates this is Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). 400 armed guys got together, called themselves a milita, and marched down the streets of Chicago (against state law). They claimed second amendment protection. The court disagreed and ruled:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
Each state sets the rules for its own militia. Each state decides how they will protect your right to keep and bear arms, whether you're in the state militia or not. The second amendment tells Congress to butt out when it comes to states doing this.
Wrong again Einstein. My Right to self defense, and thus to possessing arms to see to that self defense, comes from God, not from any government entity.
Go back and read the amendment again. It says that the Right shall not be infringed. That means the right existed BEFORE the Amendment was written, not after.
No. It doesn't. It just says that without our Right to keep and bear arms, we the people can't form a militia, therefore, it can never be infringed.
Not only are you on shaky ground with your historical facts, now you don't seem to understand grammatical rules and context. Re-read Shulman's questions to Professor Roy Copperud.
Also, how can Presser have any legal standing as dictum if the Second Amendment is the "Supreme law of the Land" the "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" and "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"?
That is an awful lot of of the Federal Constitution restricting the States. HHmmm... either the Founders got it wrong, or your idiotic judges were changing the meaning of the Constitution as they went along.
Yes, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not providing a 20 mic- mic to a 6 year old.
What do you fear from freedom?
From freedom I fear nothing, but for some here, freedom means the ability to take that freedom from others. We live in the greatest Nation on earth, and have the greatest form of government, one which was created out of the blood of our forefathers so that our Federal Republic could work. If I am dissatisfied with the actions of my government, I understand how to effect the changes necessary, without looking to the local redneck militia. I have the experience and arms quite sufficient to defend my home and family.
When I need to look for help from clowns who scream daily about their right to carry nuclear arms because it is some sort of unalienable right, our Country will have ended its great reign.
Why such a scared little rabbit that all those around you must be brought down to a lower level to make you feel somehow safer in your tiny little illusion?
Why such inane and stupid words that all around you may actually believe you are some kind of brave defender of our liberties?
Of course the Founders had varying opinions, but on some they all agreed. That free men should NEVER be restrained from bearing arms, using them in defense of themselves and their property, and as a last resort to do away with a government gone mad... on THAT, they all agreed.
Yes, another pathetic wannabe savior of our Nation. Go on out to your feel good militia meeting, finish off your two or three cases of beer, fire off a few rounds to ensure your little group is primed and ready to defend against a government gone mad, and then weave your way back home to take advantage of all this great Nation has to offer.
If you had but a clue, you would not deny this. But you do... More's the fool you...
You have no clue what I believe, so acting as if you do demonstrates only your fear of ideas. You must shut up anyone you fear may express an idea that could possibly conflict with your own convictions. You cannot handle even a light challenge to your house-of-cards philosophy. So you attack the poster to show the world that anything he says is to be ignored. Is that one of those freedoms you refer to...the freedom to shut everyone up? That I even took the time to respond to such garbage probably assures that at least your last statement was partially true.
No. It is.
Think of the U.S. Constitution as a contract or pact between the states and the newly formed federal government. The states are keeping certain powers and ceding others to the federal government. The Supremacy Clause you're referring to says that this contract (or pact) is supreme -- it overrides any other contract (eg., the prior Articles of Confederation).
Whatever is in this new contract (called the U.S. Constitution) is now the supreme law of the land. But the contract never stated that the BOR applied to the states. The first amendment, for example, specifically says "Congress". Now, how can the Supremacy Clause apply the first amendment to the states as "the supreme law of the land"? It can't.
Anything in the U.S. Constitution that only applied to the federal government (like printing money) only applies to the federal government -- do you think the Supremacy Clause means the states can print money?
The first eight amendments, when written, only applied to the federal government. The Supremacy Clause does not change that fact one iota.
What me and my kids go out and shoot is none of your G*dd*mn business. If you don't like it, don't go to the same range we do.
From freedom I fear nothing, but for some here, freedom means the ability to take that freedom from others.
Um... in case you didn't notice, you are the one advocating the "reasonable restrictions" on our freedoms.
We live in the greatest Nation on earth, and have the greatest form of government, one which was created out of the blood of our forefathers so that our Federal Republic could work. If I am dissatisfied with the actions of my government, I understand how to effect the changes necessary, without looking to the local redneck militia. I have the experience and arms quite sufficient to defend my home and family.
So you think that if the government oversteps its bound s and comes for you and your family that a couple of deer rifles are gonna convince them to go elsewhere? You are just about a clueless wonder ain't'cha?
When I need to look for help from clowns who scream daily about their right to carry nuclear arms because it is some sort of unalienable right, our Country will have ended its great reign.
Nice one Capitan Hyperbole. What next? Claim that if more law abiding citizens carry personal arms that crime will go up? That there will be "blood in the streets"? Josh Sugarmen... is that you?
Why such inane and stupid words that all around you may actually believe you are some kind of brave defender of our liberties?
I am. Why aren't you?
Yes, another pathetic wannabe savior of our Nation. Go on out to your feel good militia meeting, finish off your two or three cases of beer, fire off a few rounds to ensure your little group is primed and ready to defend against a government gone mad, and then weave your way back home to take advantage of all this great Nation has to offer.
Are you SURE you are on the right website? That sounds just like some of the crap we get from our DUmmy trolls.
You have no clue what I believe, so acting as if you do demonstrates only your fear of ideas. You must shut up anyone you fear may express an idea that could possibly conflict with your own convictions. You cannot handle even a light challenge to your house-of-cards philosophy. So you attack the poster to show the world that anything he says is to be ignored. Is that one of those freedoms you refer to...the freedom to shut everyone up? That I even took the time to respond to such garbage probably assures that at least your last statement was partially true.
House of cards? A Constitutional Republic predicated on the basis of Individual freedom and liberty? Look, no one will force you to be free, to live your own life. Just keep voting Democrat and someone will be along shortly to take care of you from cradle to grave.
*buzz* Wrong! "We the People" didn't like the way the Confederacy was going, so we got a bunch of our best and brightest together and had them revamp things. We gave certain powers to the FedGov, left the rest up to ourselves and our State governments, and added a BoR to let EVERYONE know what was hands off to anyone.
...
Accept for the parts where is says "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" and "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" and that the prohibitions in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments means only people who are living in Federal housing, own Federal property, or are being tried in Federal courts...
You can't win this one.
Your own words give us a 'clue':
"-- The extent to which various types of weapons should be permitted depends on their ability to create a destabilization of the social fabric. Does that include machine guns. I don't know the answer to that. I do know however, that the 2d Amendment does not guarantee that we have the absolute right to any weapon desired. --"
Don't expect Bobby to waver from the Brady line of reasoning. You know as well as I that he won't.
They may be. And the sound of hoofbeats in the distance may be zebras.
But you'd have to believe that for the past 100 years or so 49 states have been violating the second amendment and nothing has been done about it! Where are the court cases, the arguments, the rulings? Imagine the controversy if 49 states were violating the fourth amendment or the first!
No, it's too easy to argue, "It's unconstitutional!" and leave it at that. This would be an awfully boring forum if that was to be the extent of the debate. So, I don't accept your answer.
"Or would you write these ideas with clear meaning and obvious intent, to be understood by the common reader?"
For purposes of our discussion, we can leave that aside. Why? Because whatever the second amendment protects, it only protects it from federal infringement. The states are not bound by it. The states are bound only by their state constitution when it come to the right to keep and bear arms.
I agree. Now is not the the time to be pressing for some U.S. Supreme Court determination on the meaning of the second amendment -- not with lower federal court cases running 50-1 against an individual right.
You mean I was talking about you with the 6 year old and the 20 mic-mic? Heh, heh.
So you think that if the government oversteps its bound s and comes for you and your family that a couple of deer rifles are gonna convince them to go elsewhere?
No, my guns won't stop the government, my votes will though. Nor will I depend on the local beer-bellied militia to bail me out. The last thing I need to hear about freedom is that you brave souls, with all your out of date rifles and a few smuggled in M-16s and maybe even a block or two of destabilized C-4 are going to rescue me and my family from the sudden hordes of government troops bent on turning America into a concentration camp. Thanks but no thanks.
Nice one Capitan Hyperbole. What next? Claim that if more law abiding citizens carry personal arms that crime will go up? That there will be "blood in the streets"? Josh Sugarmen... is that you?
Not at all. Far be it from me to point to Iraq where everyone is exercising their God-given right to bear arms. Why would I suggest that giving everyone every conceivable type weapon would result in tens of thousands of deaths, and bring total chaos to the people?
Oh, but then, I've never claimed that law-abiding citizens shouldn't carry arms, have I?
Why such inane and stupid words that all around you may actually believe you are some kind of brave defender of our liberties? I am. Why aren't you?
As I said before, you know nothing about me. On the other hand, I do know that those who make a lot of claims, such as you, rarely live up to them. Loudmouths are not to be feared, for they use their mouths where other tools fail them.
Are you SURE you are on the right website? That sounds just like some of the crap we get from our DUmmy trolls.
Yes, that was next. You are a completely predictable wannabe, who is far more upset that I have pointed you out than what I stand for.
The is the organized militia such as you are refering to and the unorganized militia. Stop lumping the two together. Also the National guard "militia" you refer to is also under Federal control so it is not direct state control as you alledge. I think the case was Perpich from Minn.
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.