Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
My point is simple ... the right enumerated by the Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of myself, my family, our property and our liberty is not granted, conveyed, given, permitted, or in any other way dispensed or dependent on the "state" ... either in the federal or local sense. I will not allow said right to be trampled by any governing body ... period.
When they try to do this, out-right and in general as the state attorney of California emplies ... they will be trodding on dangerous ground and will find out, in the same way that the King of England found it out ... that such a right is unalienable and one to be defended at the cost of life or limb if necessary.
As I said, I do not want that, I work to avoid it and hope it doesn't happen or come to that ... but the key to it not happening is for the right not to be infringed ... not me or mine giving it up.
Those with arms rule. Simple as that. As long as the people as a whole are well armed, they will have the power to govern in this nation ... when it is given up, that form of government will have changed completely to where the tyrants rule and have the power to maintain it.
So, VLD may well be right about the "incorporation" ... but it is not correct to assume that the government holds this right to dispense, revoke, grant or convey something that is not, nor never was the government's to convey. They may try and use the power to force the issue, but they do not have the right. To try and force it will lead to the same circumstances as when the King of England tried to force the self same issue ... with similar results.
To suppose anything different IMHO is to suppose that the very essence of our Republic is shattered without hope of reconstitution ... it is something I will not suppose as long as I have a living breath.
Why are you afraid to answer that question?
I pray to God it does not come to that, but at that point we will have been forced into the same recourse they took when the government of their day came to take their arms ... which they rightly recognized were their last resort to obtain, keep, vouchsafe and preserve the very rights they later enumerated in the BOR.
Like I say, I pray and work with all energy to avoid it coming to that. I hope it does not.
Thank you. (You realize it could - and legally we'd be shafted). Explain that to tpaine.
Our founders were forced into just this quandry ... before there was a constitution ... but it was written on their hearts and they went forward with faith.
Like I say, I pray and work to avoid it ... I do not desire it, but will not give up those rights. There are fates worse than death ... there are things worth fighting and dying for. It is the American way IMHO. A small group of farmers in Klamath understood this last year and risked all to right just such a wrong.
Simple, because that is how the founders viewed this nation i.e. weak federal Government and strong State government. The Feds only became as powerful as it is after the ratification of the 14th amendment. That not only ostensibly applied the BOR to all the states but it also instituted federal supremacy over all state laws. The situation as it stands now is that the Federal government could make the 2nd amendment meaningless by regulating gun ownership out of existence no matter what a state constitution may say. If the founders had intended for the Federal constitution to be the only law in the land then state constitutions would have been disallowed. This nation was founded on the principle of “multiple laboratories of democracy”. You cannot on one had say that the Feds do not have the power to usurp state laws on illegal drugs based on the 10th amendment and then assert that the state cannot regulate the RKBA. It is not a tenable position.
Viva Le Dissention: States have a right to prevent people from bearing arms. Period. 62
Senator Pardek: Unfortunately you are correct, and what you are saying is going over everyone's head. 256
Zon: States don't have rights. It's important to get the basics correct first .264
Senator Pardek: Cut the crap - you're mistaking me for the other ignorant hillbillies around here. 273
Zon: No crap. Just a fact. States don't have rights. That's basic, IMO. Do you agree? 275
Are you prepared to tell me that if the SC rules that people with names that end with an "N" can own firearms (and no one else), it would be illegal?
Would you petition to thbe UN for a new look? LOL!
What's up with he straw man -- I asked you a simple question. "States don't have rights. That's basic, IMO. Do you agree?" 275
State laws on prohibiting 'drugs' are just as unconstitutional as such federal laws. Prohibitions violate due process of law, regardless of the type of government that decreed them. Simple principle you seem unable to understand.
and then assert that the state cannot regulate the RKBA. It is not a tenable position.
States can 'regulate' the public use of weapons. They cannot prohibit lawful use or possession, nor can the feds. We have an inalienable right to possess weapons for self defense.
Learn to live with our constitution 'tex'.
And please, study up on it. Your historical comprehension of it is as faulty as your legal sense.
Look up "regulate" some time and then get back to me.
You obviously don't or you would not be arguing with me.
Federal government.
The Constitution was a grant of powers to the federal government. The Bill of Rights was subsequently added to prevent misconstruction of the powers delegated.
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Read a book.
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.