Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Correction: when they use arms.
Essentially what Adams is saying is that citizens should only use arms [against other people] for self-defense, or as directed by the government; they are not to act as non-governmental vigilantes. For citizens to use their arms in vigilante actions would be to undermine even a fully-legitimate government.
To be sure, John Adams fails to recognize what should have been additional non-governmental uses for weapons (e.g. hunting, practice). He also fails to recognize that use of arms against lawless government personnel may need to extend beyond individual self-defense (e.g. Battle of Athens, ca 1946 or so). Even he, however, did not come anywhere near implying that citizens shouldn't possess arms or be able to use them in their own defense.
I wouldn't want a libertarian on a jury to decide a traffic ticket. Fortunately they are statistically insignificant, based on election returns. But they're as much an enemy of the state and our country as any ACLU type.
"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)
After the undeserved bashing you gave me over the whole Christine thing, I never thought we would be in agreement on anything. I'm with you on this one. The Constitution is clearly a limitation upon Federal activities except where it explicitly mentions the states. The unfortunate and incongruous 14th Amendment and its continuing misapplication has changed that though.
Even so, the Colorado Constitution recognizes and guarantees the right to keep and bear arms - the Denver ordinance can't supersede that.
Stanley had the right, both before and after the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, to carry his weapon anywhere he damn well pleased too. Inalienable is inalienable - the City of Denver be damned.
Eschoir was more than a bit paranoid also. -- Hard to hide basic disorders, isn't it?
Correction accepted.
The judge ordered him not to. The whole point of asking a prospective juror a hypothetical question about the state & federal constitutions was to get that prohibition repeatedly documented. He may not have literally established those two facts, but he did make it clear that he was absolutely forbidden to do so, a point which an appellate judge should shred this judge on.
Not off hand. Just got back from a paintball session and I can hardly type straight, much less find obscure legal references. I'm sure someone else has it handy; Roscoe probably knows, even if he can't comprehend it.
Who am I to argue with your experience? :)
Maybe. I've heard it argued that Denver has greater latitude to pass restrictions as a "home rule city", but I don't have enough information to make a decision on that point.
Rick deliberately chose to wrap himself in the mantle of the Second Amendment when he went down to defeat. I believe he knew he was chalking up another court loss for us when he went in, but that he really didn't care.
Shame on him, shame on his "lawyer."
More so.
No, he was just looking for a little cheap publicity.
Guilty as charged.
Basic federalism.
No, he was just looking for a little cheap publicity.
Guilty as charged.
Your opinion here is worthless, roscoe, as you are an avowed foe of the 2nd amendment RKBA. -- In your demented eyes, he is guilty of defying your beloved all powerful state. - Bizarro.
In theory. But the reality is they're so stoned or medicated, they would never be trusted in any position of power.
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.