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.
Interesting and thought provoking statement. Then maybe we should roll back the entire Bill of Rights to 1791 parameters.
Free Speech shall only be allowed to include freedom of assembly and the printed word. No radio, TV, or internet.
Your interpretation has been proved wrong by the SCOTUS Heller decision.
"Needless to say I strongly agreed with Stevens' decent from DC v. Heller and generally ignore it in favor of US v. Miller 1939."
You can ignore it all you want it just shows your ignorance. This is now the law no matter your denial of it.
"The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect states from the federal government disarming them."
The Bill of Rights pertains to the people. States have no rights. The 2nd Amendment does no such thing.You really need to educate yourself.
How many times do I have to spell this out. Prior to the 14th amendment the bill of rights DID NOT PROTECT PEOPLE FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS it protected states rights and individuals from the federal government (and yes states do have rights that is why they are states and not provences...as an example states have the right to send representatives and senators to congress and hold powers not reserved for the federal government in the constitution) read Barron V Baltimore 1833 and educate yourself. As to Heller vs DC I think it was a wrong decision and I agree with the Stevens decent. I have read both Heller and Miller and disagreeing with a supreme court majority, especially when its 5-4 and you think the decent was right on does not make one ignorant especially when they ignored all precident on the issue since Cruishank v US 1873 which said specifically "[the second amendment] has no other effect then to restrict the powers of national government". Yes it is a matter of law but I do not have to agree with it...disagreeing with a law or SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with ignorance. Your the one that needs to educate yourself rather then pontificate on supreme court cases you probably have never even read.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-02-2009 at 12:58 PM..
Its not the only arguement that makes sense. Actually it makes absolutely no sense. Try that reasoning regarding any other civil right.
Originally the states were fair representatives of the people & not repressive gov'ts in their own right. Few could have forseen how they would abuse their powers but the fact remains that the Constitution protects the rights of everyone in our borders, not just the states that agree with it. The 14th Amendmend made it quite clear that a state could npt trample a civil right simply because it didn't like it.
True to a degree, tell me how a state would muster a militia today? When did we vote to abolish the ability to form a militia? When did we vote to reverse the second amendment?
How do you explain the fact that Congress has the power to call up the militia, being a federal power & all?
You cannot form a well organized, or any other form of militia without acrmed civilians. The constitution ALWAYS applied to individuals.
Scalia, nor I, forgot the preamble. Its there, but it limits nothing. Its simply a compelling reason not to infringe the right to keep & bear arms, that was especially on their minds at the time. If as you seem to think it was a right limited to militia service it would have been worded differently & practiced differently at the time. It wasn't because its not.
They understood the English language & if they wanted guns restricted to active militia they would have said as much. The fact is that to ths day EVERY able bodied man between 18 & 45 IS a member of the militia acording to current federal law. But the right has never been construed as to disarm those too old for service nor has it been construed so as to not apply to women.
We do not ignore the justification clause, we simply aknowledge it for what it is, a compelling reason to preserve the RKBA.
Huh? This basic right has been regarded as such for hundreds of years. The Constitution did not create a right, not one. It simply recognizes them. As a free living human being you have a right to defend yourself. As such you have a right to the tools to effect this defense. A couple hundred years ago that meant a sword or musket. Today it means a gun, in the future who can tell.
Of course they expected States to raise militias. The fact that states would rather use paid unthinking civil servants instead of free thinking civilians in no way changes that.
As to the last sentence, how is removing individual freedom & rights inportant for expanding individual freedom?
Are you under the impression that we are more free than in the past?
Those things you speak of were adressed by the 14th amendment. The reason for that is because those states were denying Constitutional rights. If you support the idea that a state can override the second amendment then you support the repression of free speach, you support slavery, you support state churches & you deny that the Constitution has any real meaning whatsoever.
The SCOTUS did not rewrite the Constitution. They simply defined it as intended, to protect the rights of those living in the United States of America.
Read, Cruishank vs. US 1873 that is the best explaination of why I view the 2nd amendment the way I do in the wake of the 14th Amendment. Prior to the 14th amendment read barron v baltimore 1833 and see that the states had absolute rights to void parts of the bill of rights as applied to their citizens and their laws as they chose. As to militias I agree, but it should be up to the states what arms they wish to allow for militia purposes. I do not think the constitution protects people right to own any type of arm they want. States have the power to regulate this.
As to wording the founders did indeed know English and if they agreed with your interpretation they would have simply said "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Without the militia part simple as that, it is clear they intended it for militia purposes and as to women, children and the elderly remaining armed that was seen as essential as well at the time for civil defense as if the 15-45 year old men were fighting you still would have needed a town watch to protect against enemy raids the Amendment is all about militias and not having big brother feds disarming and turning the states into provences.
As to the federal governments ability to raise an army that is in the constitution. States no longer have the machinery to call up militias because it simply is not necessary anymore. In theory however, they could set up the machinery to do so and be perfectly within the law in doing it.
Finally, regarding rights outside of the constitution that is left up to the states as per the 10th amendment. The Consititution does not cover those things and the preamble is simply outlining the goals of the constitution and not any specific protections. As such the preamble is the main method federal power userpers use to impose their will. The founders never intended the preamble to be a catch all voiding of the 10th amendment. As to basic rights of free human beings they do not exist outside of the respective consitutions and laws of various states it is a myth set up by enlightenment political philosophers trying to end monarchies people have no rights outside of the ones we give ourselves.
As to the last sentence I am simply saying your idea of the US never existed. There was never a time when states had sovereignty and people had federal constitutional protections. Prior to the 14th amendment states had sovereignty but people had no bill of rights protections from the states. After the 14th amendment people had protections from the states but states lost most of their sovereignty.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-02-2009 at 01:32 PM..
I don't view the Constitution as staic - I view it as a living, breathing, changing (changeable) document. The role of the courts is to intrepret it through the lens of our times within the framework of it's core, immutable principles.
And therein lies the problem -- the possibility that the/any administration would take a document that has withstood the test of time for 200+ years with some reasonable tweaks and not just add to it but alter it in ways that water-down or eliminate basic rights to meet its priorities.
To me, as an American and a patriot, that's scary. Bush pushed it more than enough (Patriot Act et al). I shudder to think what a socialist, I know better than you, overly-confident, inexperienced youngster like Obama will try.
And therein lies the problem -- the possibility that the/any administration would take a document that has withstood the test of time for 200+ years with some reasonable tweaks and not just add to it but alter it in ways that water-down or eliminate basic rights to meet its priorities.
To me, as an American and a patriot, that's scary. Bush pushed it more than enough (Patriot Act et al). I shudder to think what a socialist, I know better than you, overly-confident, inexperienced youngster like Obama will try.
It shouldn't be that scary since it's how our judiciary has functioned since it's inception.
So then a state can take away your right to free speech, put some soldiers up in your house and conduct random, baseless searches? It is OK for the state to force you to testify against yourself?
Prior to the fourteenth amendment they could. Here are some examples in the 1840s Maryland banned anti-slavery publications. In the 1860s several states banned the Republican party. In several states prior to 1820, state churches were established with tithes being furnished from tax dollars. Additionally states could seize property or injure property without due process of law if it was deemed permissible by that state. How many times do I have to say Read Barron v. Baltimore 1833 to see that the bill of rights did not apply to states prior to 1868.
Prior to the fourteenth amendment they could. Here are some examples in the 1840s Maryland banned anti-slavery publications. In the 1860s several states banned the Republican party. In several states prior to 1820, state churches were established with tithes being furnished from tax dollars. Additionally states could seize property or injure property without due process of law if it was deemed permissible by that state. How many times do I have to say Read Barron v. Baltimore 1833 to see that the bill of rights did not apply to states...are you people slow or something.
Meh, i deleted it, you must have been quoting me before I hit the button, although, I do applaud your response, and give you rep for it.
The 2nd amendment should only apply to the arms available as of 1791.
And what of the 1st Amendment? Should we dissolve that also because it my offend you also?
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.
Thanks!
