Posted on 05/03/2002 9:35:57 PM PDT by Caleb1411
So you agree that the Second Amendment is a restriction on Congress?
Yup, and your post seems to have confounded him. My more unsophisticated posts seem to be closer to his level.
No, but that source sure would take the wind out of my sails...with the included list of cases, if you please.
Of course, and the states as well.
Nonsense, go to the search bar and type in "from: Roscoe" and you will have all the supporting material you need.
Tell you what, if you can't support the assertion, retract it, admit it was baseless and sincerely apologize. Then you can have the link.
Wrong. No cites, naturally.
No cites, naturally.
Wrong.
"Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures." -- Samuel Adams, as quoted in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANGELO DIVISION, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598, April 7, 1999, Decided
"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." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams
If they don't know any law or history, that must entitle them to invent facts as they go along.
Against state regulation? Sounds more like imagination than memory.
Cite, please.
Do you work for the Brady Campaign? You do make a good useful idiot.
God I love to see you guys beaten so badly you sputter.
That is the refuge of scoundrals. I invited you to post the part of the case YOU CITED where the court said the states could ignore the law. You can't so you ask me to prove myself wrong. See, you are a self important moron, Roscoe.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments. -- Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833)
Beaten? To quote your buddy, cite please.
And BTW, GFYS.
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.