Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've got to understand that this individual is an attorney. They don't call them "liars for hire" for nothing.
I'm sure that you could find another attorney that has a different opinion than his? Just as you have both a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial or civil suit. One of them is gonna' win and another is gonna' lose. It doesn't make either one of them right or wrong. It's their job to argue cases that benefit one side or the other. That does not make all attorney's Constitutional Scholars.
A lot of state's have their own individual Constitutional provisions that may or may not go beyond the Federal Constitution. My home state of Arizona has its own 2nd Amendment provision that goes beyond the Federal one. It's pretty hard to misinterpret as to who that right applies to.
Some state's have no such provisions other than to rely on and abide by the Federal Constitution.
However and by his own admission the Supreme Court has already ruled that the individual rights afforded to us under the Federal Constitution applies to the state's as well. Apparently he does not agree with that, but there's not a God damn thing he can do about it.
" that may or may not go beyond the Federal Constitution" The CAN go BEYOND but NOT backwards.
Faithfully supporting and defending the Constitution does not mean abiding by constitutional provisions that were never intended to apply to your polity to begin with. Nor does it mean that every portion of the Constitution applies to you
As I've mentioned numerous times, much of this conversation is for naught as the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states today via incorporation. Still, its important to get the historical and legal record straight, which supports that the BOR as originally adopted only limited federal, not state, power.
"This is getting ridiculous."
I am glad to see admit your errors.
"Nor does it mean that every portion of the Constitution applies to you"
"We the PEOPLE of the United States..... The last time I check I am one "of the PEOPLE of the United States."
Nowhere did he claim that he was "trying to present the views of others". But from reading many of the comments on this board I'm sure that there are "others" that agree with him as well.
He didn't claim it, but it was what he did, and of course some will always agree with partisan talking points. Or who knows, maybe he is the spokesperson for the "leftists", and he is here to explain what the "leftists" think. I am not a leftists, so I guess I wouldn't know, but would be nice to hear the leftist views from the leftists themselves.
I can only speak for my own view, which I already posted: Well regulated = well functioning. Well functioning excludes the mentally ill, children, criminals, junkies and those who are physically unable to safely operate a firearm. The above is pretty much in the books already, so we're good for now with maybe some very minor changes needed.
He didn't claim it, but it was what he did, and of course some will always agree with partisan talking points. Or who knows, maybe he is the spokesperson for the "leftists", and he is here to explain what the "leftists" think. I am not a leftists, so I guess I wouldn't know, but would be nice to hear the leftist views from the leftists themselves.
I can only speak for my own view, which I already posted: Well regulated = well functioning. Well functioning excludes the mentally ill, children, criminals, junkies and those who are physically unable to safely operate a firearm. The above is pretty much in the books already, so we're good for now with maybe some very minor changes needed.
Damn, you sound like "other people" are your property, to tell what they can and cannot do.
Welcome to the scariest thing in the world.... Other People's Freedom.
I've supported legal and historical evidence to back up my position.
....and completely ignored the very document that explicitly states the rules, and makes perfectly clear which parts apply to only the Fed govt and which apply to ALL govts. As well as completely ignoring the ludicrous consequences we would have had if your (and apparently others') wishful thinking were true.
When you get into a hole as deep as the one you're now in, I suggest you stop digging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that while an accused person gets a jury trial if he breaks a Federal law, he DOESN'T get one if he breaks a state or local law (6th amendment).
And while the Fed govt isn't allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect, a state or local govt CAN (5th amendment).
And while A Fed govt agent must get a warrant before entering your house and searching it, a state cop can just walk in any time and search it from top to bottom, whenever he wants, for any reason or no reason (4th amendment).
The only amendment that mentions Congress specifically... and applies to only it.
Yes, but the non ratified 1st Amendment mentions Congress specifically, of course the original 3rd proposed, became the actual 1st.
The non ratified 2nd AM mentions the "Legislature" too. The ratified 4th became the 2nd on approval.
Quote:
The Constitution is the law of the land, which incorporates 50 individual sovereign entities and additional territories. You might profit by reading the law, available in any county courthouse law library.
A University/College Law school law library has easier public access.
The 2nd amendment is a statement of the Framers' opinion that the country is better off with government having NO say in which people can own and carry guns. Better off than the country would be if government has ANY say in the question.
Felons and crazy people existed in George Washington's time and were just as prominent as they are today. The Framers believed that even if a few nutcases got guns and killed some innocents, that harm was less than if government had the power to choose who could or couldn't own and carry.
They also left the decision of last resort, to juries who could decide on a case by case basis ONLY whether the 2nd amendment should be applied to a certain person under the certain circumstances of the crime under consideration. Juries, though convened by government, are not government themselves. They are you and me, with complete power to interpret (and even reject) a law solely by their own judgment. And their verdict is final.
It was the best the Framers could do. And though not perfect, it is better than anything anybody else has been able to come up with since.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
