Replies

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.

Jeff,

You're absolutely correct in all your arguments and I do not disagree with anything you said. The objective of my post was entirely different.

Too many posters here at Free Republic are uninformed about the current state of law wrt RKBA. They think the 2nd Amendment protects this right. But the current state of the law is entirely different. The 2nd, as it is currently interpreted, only protects against federal infringement and not state. These gun owners cannot sit back and claim this is a protected right. They must face the fact that their state legislatures are the serious threat to their rights and do something about that.

This is something not confined to California. The NRA website lists a number of states whose constitution does not protect RKBA. These states are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Under current law, if you live in one of these states, you do not have a constitutionally protected RKBA.

I'm not so sure I disagree with this. It seems to me that there is a contradiction in conservative thought. It seem contradictory to believe in the 10th amendment and to simultaneously argue for extending the BoR protections to the states.

We protest the federal involvement in many areas, yet we want to claim a federal protection when it suits our case. In that regard we are not much different from the liberals. If you change the subject from RKBA to say, prayer in schools, it is difficult to distinguish between liberal and conservative arguements.

BTW, you're spending entirely too much time here at Free Republic. I think you should be spending every waking second in completing Vol III. I just finished Vol II last week to learn that I have to wait till spring for Vol III. Get back to work lest I start a petion to Jim Robinson to have you banned until Vol III is published. Just kidding Jeff, it's a great read and I can wait until Spring.