Replies

The governing USSC case is UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. (92 U.S. 542)(October Term, 1875)

Quoting: "6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Bottom line. The 2nd is almost the only amendment not "incorporated".

IOW, VLD, you're right and those disagreeing with you are incorrect.

I do not care whether it has been "incorporated" or not. I do not take issue with VLD's claim. in that regard.

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.

Well, those clowns who made that decision must be on crack:

Article IV

Section 2:

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I know I don't have a law degree and all, but the above seems pretty clear. What gives?