A questions as to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[georg jetson]

Very good points. In regards to the nuke or other WOMDs, obviously the authors had no idea of how weapons technology would develop over the next 200+ years. As it is today, *we* have no idea what the future will bring. Nano technology weapons that can disassemble matter at the subatomic level? Anti-matter explosive devices perhaps? No one can know for sure. That is what is so important about the democratic process is that the the individual is allowed to vote for the general good of the populace. The common sense of the majority of voters (which yes, sometimes is lacking, but overall works in a general sense) should dictate the regulation of weapons. The line is hard to be drawn sometimes but that is what a democracy is about. There is always someone or group that is going to be unhappy with a particular decision. But that person still must respect the decision of society as a whole. Maybe I personally don't agree with making "auto knives" or machine guns illegal. If I don't like that decision it is up to me or a group of like minded individuals to change the mind of the general populace and swing the vote (using reason/logic etc...)

This is a very exhaustive thread about the 2a. I’ve read through it and this particular post caught my eye. I think there may be a bit of a misconception about what weapons technology was in the late 1700s as compared to what society thinks should be regulated today. In addition, I fail to see how the issue of technology is relevant.

There are regulations on “arms” today that EXISTED at the time the 2a was penned. These include exploding shells, as well as explosives in general. Of course, at the time the 2A was written it was well established that a crime was NOT something that COULD happen to someone or their property, it was something that HAD happened to someone, or their property, or an attempt thereof. The point being that, besides being unconstitutional, no law could “ban” a firearm or explosive because the mere possession did not encroach on another’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. There was ALWAYS a possibility of using arms criminally no matter how primitive or advanced. Somehow, now it has become important that the NUMBER of people that can become victims of an individual criminal act. As if to say, “as long as you can only kill 3 people a minute you can posses the arm”. Who gets to pick this arbitrary number?? This “picker” of the arbitrary number must of course have mastered the skill of predicting how many attackers someone may face at any place and at any time.

So… now we have nukes and lasers and helicopters etc… does that really matter? One thing we can glean from many of the posts in this thread is that the 2A’s most important role is defense… foreign AND domestic. If it is indeed the intention of the framers to give us the enforcement power of armed resistance to a tyrannical government, then “restricting” the 2A can NEVER be used as a tool for the tyrannical government to gain a tactical advantage over its citizens. I submit that is has.

Ok… we think a nuke may be so dangerous as to warrant control on its possession… but then how do we control it’s possession? Do we automatically think that we MUST prohibit private possession? What is the alternative? Do we allow the government the only license to posses such a device? The government?!?! Why would we trust the government with such an awesome power? If this is the case, then an argument can be made to allow the government to gain a tactical advantage over its “subjects” and the issue of the 2A as is relates to a tyrannical government is moot. If an INDIVIDUAL cannot be entrusted to possess an arm, then the GOVERNMENT is much less of a trustee and to ignore this is to ignore common sense.

I don’t know who I quote but… “Tyranny exists when the government possess that which is denied to the citizen”. If the people can’t be trusted with “possessing” something, then it most certainly CANNOT be entrusted to the government.

Speaking specifically to this quote from the post above…

“The common sense of the majority of voters (which yes, sometimes is lacking, but overall works in a general sense) should dictate the regulation of weapons. The line is hard to be drawn sometimes but that is what a democracy is about.”

This FLYS in the FACE of the 2A. It takes MORE than a simple majority of the people to amend the constitution which is the only LEGAL way the 2A can be restricted or changed. Of course this is NOT a democracy as any other form of government other than a republic is unconstitutional. Our BIGGEST issue when it comes to the 2A or ANY other restriction on the government enumerated in the constitution, is that the people don’t understand what type of government that we have under the Constitution of the United States. Why?? I guess I have to go find the “America is a dying Republic” forum to continue…

 

[slowfiveoh]

When conversing with the "living, breathing document" types who insist on abandoning all scientific method in researching, it is imperative to recognize that their argument will be based on nothing of any substantiation. One particular member in this thread will repeat her unfounded argument in a circular fashion, and provide no historical referendum to add weight to her opinion and/or claims.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A simple deduction in English sentence structure and composition will in fact clear this up, whether it be "The Kings English", or modern parlance.


For those who believe the amendment specifies something other than an individual right, and using the misaligned thought that "regulate" and "militia" mean something other than what it truly does, you may have seen an amendment like this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As you can clearly see, the word "people" is not in any way required to definitely state that the forming of a "militia" was to be limited to such.


The word "people" is included by the articulate, and well learned founders, because it is meant to imply directly that the general masses be allowed the right to defend themselves regardless the technology of the time.


It is furthermore, very clear when reading the works of the framers, what the intent of the Amendment was:

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing
arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...” Richard Henry Lee, Additional letters from The Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention (1788).

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.”
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions (1787-88).

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788).

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
George Washington.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson Papers 344 (J. Boyd, ed. 1950).

“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them...”
George Mason, 3 Elliott Debates (on the Constitution) 380.



See, these "statements" are in "books".

These "books" are written by personal observation by qualified court reporters excerpts and the like.

These "books" hold these "statements" in them as inescapable proof of concept.



Ladies and gentlemen. Be prepared to watch the tapdancing of certain members as they attempt to explain away history, science, deductive reasoning, and plain old logic.


Oh hey Beretta. Didn't notice you were in this thread.

I couldn't help but notice your whimsical signature, and I had a question for your wisdumb.

Gravity is a universal constant. If you hold out a pool ball in your hand and drop it, it will fall towards the surface of the earth. Yes?


Damn those fundamental truths. Am I right?


Good read for those who have a bit of interest and time (Highly recommended for circular arguers):

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

[ColeMD17]

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve our right to protect ourselves from and overthrow our government. Obviously, that right would have almost no point if we are only allowed weapons that are inferior to the government's, so it must necessarily cover whatever arms that keep us on-par the government... Like machine guns and suppressors.

Then along came the NFA, GCA, and the '86 MG ban... BOOM. Illegal infringement, right there. Period. In black and white, people. Black and frigg'n white violation of the 2nd AND 10th Amendments.

I AM free to keep and bear whatever small arms I damn well please. I plead the 2nd and 10th on that.


See, here's the clause that really "gets down to the point" of the 2A.

"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Let me break that down for you gun grabbers out there...

the
Right: As in, God-given entitlement
of
The People: As in, all of us, We the People, the Citizens of the United States
to
Keep: As in, to own and have in your own abode
AND: Both the previous word AS WELL AS the next word. That's right, BOTH. not just "one or the other." BOTH, dammit.
Bear: as in, to have on your person
Arms: as in, small arms, like personal weapons. Not CERTAIN personal weapons... ANY AND ALL personal weapons. PERIOD.
Shall not: Meaning there is no frigg'n way for this to happen, because it would be in violation of this clause.
Be infringed: Meaning, be taken away, impeded, abridged, or limited in any way.

That is as clear as I can make it. Is that understood? Am I going too fast for you, Mrs. Brady? Chicago? Bloomberg? Obama? :banghead:

it's not f***ing rocket science, damn....

 

[We-the-People]

This is another muddying of the language by today's SLANGLISH that causes confusion.

"REGULATED" had absolutely NOTHING to do with "laws" or "regulations".

It was a military term used to indicate TRAINING and EQUIPMENT status.

"Well regulated" means literally.... "Well armed and trained to fight".

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and target shooting, and EVERYTHING to do with being able to overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive government.

I kept reading and reading and reading.....and FINALLY someone explained the meaning of "regulated" at teh time to Bill of Rights was written. Maybe some of you remember grandpa or great grandpa talking about "being regular"? It means "things are working well". In the context of "a well regulated militia" it meant, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, that the militia needed to work well. That it need to be drilled and disciplined.

To this day the federal regulations, provide for two militias. The "Organized militia" and the "Unorganized militia". As someone posted earlier, all able bodied men (still a little sexism in the federal laws 'eh) between certain ages (and some age discrimination) are "the militia".

WE...you, me, everyone, has the right to keep and BEAR arms. And yes, that includes those who have been convicted of domestic violence, those that have been convicted of a felony (after their incarceration has been served)...EVERYONE. As for those convicted, if they're too dangerous to have a firearm and walk among us, then they are to dangerous to walk among us at all.

 

[jmlefler]

The framers of the Constitution were learned men whose study I'm assuming included 'Logic'. As such the term 'necessary' has a certain meaning that may be at odds with the common vernacular. When evaluating components of a condition, in this case the condition is 'the security of a free state', two possible descriptors are 'necessary' and 'sufficient' and I believe folks think of them backwards relative to their logical meaning.
'Necessary' refers to a component that, at a minimum, must be present for a condition to be complete but in and of itself does not lead to the condition being true.
'Sufficient', on the other hand, refers to a component that in and of itself is all that is needed to make a condition true.
For example, it is generally necessary that an animal have four legs to be called a dog, but that isn't sufficient as many other non-dog animals have four legs. If an animal's DNA is canine, that would be sufficient. A striker/firing pin is necessary for a properly functioning firearm, but it isn't sufficient as many other parts are needed as well.
In the cases of the 2A, a well regulated militia is recognized as a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the security of a free state; it is but one of many parts necessary for a free state to be secure. The framers used the 'necessaryness' of the militia as one (of many possible reasons, but in this case they were establishing a free state) explanation as to why the right to keep and bear arms must clearly be protected from the Gov't.

Carry on

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

...

Oh hey Beretta. Didn't notice you were in this thread.

...

Gravity is a universal constant. If you hold out a pool ball in your hand and drop it, it will fall towards the surface of the earth. Yes?


Damn those fundamental truths. Am I right?

Gravity is a universal constant if all component necessary for gravity to exist are present in the proportions necessary to facilitate the pool ball falling to the surface of the Earth. In answer to your question regarding the pool ball, it depends. Is the Earth spinning when you drop the pool ball? Also, are there any other gravitational forces greater than the force of the Earth at play when you are dropping the pool ball? In a universe of infinite probabilities, and possibilities if you dropped the pool ball an infinite number of times the pool ball will not only not drop to the Earth, but will instead fall towards the surface of the moon, the Sun, hell, make its way out of the solar system. There is no correlation between you dropping a pool ball from your hand, and it falling towards the surface of the Earth, rather, it is more probable, or more times than not that such a thing would occur if, as I stated, all the components necessary for the pool ball to fall from your hand to the Earth are present.

Off the top of my head. You know where I am going with this. Fundamental truth is established by an observer who assumes that the 'thing' that they observe in its limited appearance of consistency is infinite, meaning that 'thing' (pool ball) will fall to the Earth every time they release the pool ball from their hand from the first time to the billion billions of a time.

 

[We-the-People]

Gravity is a universal constant if all component necessary for gravity to exist are present in the proportions necessary to facilitate the pool ball falling to the surface of the Earth. In answer to your question regarding the pool ball, it depends. Is the Earth spinning when you drop the pool ball? Also, are there any other gravitational forces greater than the force of the Earth at play when you are dropping the pool ball? In a universe of infinite probabilities, and possibilities if you dropped the pool ball an infinite number of times the pool ball will not only not drop to the Earth, but will instead fall towards the surface of the moon, the Sun, hell, make its way out of the solar system. There is no correlation between you dropping a pool ball from your hand, and it falling towards the surface of the Earth, rather, it is more probable, or more times than not that such a thing would occur if, as I stated, all the components necessary for the pool ball to fall from your hand to the Earth are present.

Off the top of my head. You know where I am going with this. Fundamental truth is established by an observer who assumes that the 'thing' that they observe in its limited appearance of consistency is infinite, meaning that 'thing' (pool ball) will fall to the Earth every time they release the pool ball from their hand from the first time to the billion billions of a time.

Actually, gravity is a universal constant equal to approximately 6.67 * 10^-11 * meters^3 * kilograms^-1 * seconds^-2.

This constant applies to all mass whether it is has rotational energy or not and so your hypothesis that the rotation, or rather lack of rotation, of the earth could affect the experiment of dropping a pool ball fails scientific scruitiny. In fact, if the earth were not rotating, the pool ball would fall infintesimally faster towards the earth as the centrepidal force of rotation would not be present to counteract the gravitational force of the earths mass.

If rotational speed of the earth was the source of gravity then, at the poles, where the surface is spinning much more slowly, you would merely float off into space. This obviously doesn't happen.

 

[Grapeshot]

Getting somewhat OT aren't we?

 

[eye95]

WtP, It sounds like you are responding to very poorly expressed quantum mechanics with classical Newtonian mechanics.

While it is correct that, if quantum mechanics is true, anything can happen, including a pool ball falling upward, we ain't ever gonna see it happen. At the most basic, hypersubatomic level all events are purely random. However, there are so many of these events that come together to create observable phenomena, that the action of gravity is (and all other such observable phenomena are) quite predictable.

It is like the tossing of a coin. Do it once, and both possible outcomes are equally likely. Do it one trillion times, and I'll be you a trillion dollars that there will be within 1% of a half-a-trillion heads.

Don't let some "poor man's" quantum theory (which is somewhat correct, but totally misapplied) throw you.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The framers of the Constitution were learned men whose study I'm assuming included 'Logic'. As such the term 'necessary' has a certain meaning that may be at odds with the common vernacular. When evaluating components of a condition, in this case the condition is 'the security of a free state', two possible descriptors are 'necessary' and 'sufficient' and I believe folks think of them backwards relative to their logical meaning.
'Necessary' refers to a component that, at a minimum, must be present for a condition to be complete but in and of itself does not lead to the condition being true.
'Sufficient', on the other hand, refers to a component that in and of itself is all that is needed to make a condition true.
For example, it is generally necessary that an animal have four legs to be called a dog, but that isn't sufficient as many other non-dog animals have four legs. If an animal's DNA is canine, that would be sufficient. A striker/firing pin is necessary for a properly functioning firearm, but it isn't sufficient as many other parts are needed as well.
In the cases of the 2A, a well regulated militia is recognized as a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the security of a free state; it is but one of many parts necessary for a free state to be secure. The framers used the 'necessaryness' of the militia as one (of many possible reasons, but in this case they were establishing a free state) explanation as to why the right to keep and bear arms must clearly be protected from the Gov't.

Carry on

Yes, the Founding Fathers were likely utilizing logic with regard to the linguistics of the Constitution, although, the document which they all gave their Johnny Handcock to was merely the result of an exercise in compromise.

 

[user]

... But I am concerned that people are warping its meaning. .... The Government already twists and warps the Constitution to say what they want it to....

Gee, ya think?

Let's see, there was Marbury v. Madison, which did NOT stand for the principle of "judicial review", which had been established by the Court of King's Bench about two hundred years earlier, but which did announce the principle that the Constitution, being of the subject matter of federal law, was exclusively the province of federal interpretation, and specifically of the Sup. Ct. of the U.S.; then, about fifty years later, the states fought a big war against the U.S. over that same issue (who gets to decide what constitutes "property"?), and then there was F.D. Roosevelt and others wishing to use the power of the federal government to make their own agenda the law of the land.

It is necessary to create an unconstitutionally hierarchical structure in order to take over America as a whole, because otherwise you'd have to control each state as well as the U.S. And, whether we're talking about Nineteenth Century Northern merchants who wanted to control trade with Europe, or more recently, socialists on the one hand and the Roman Empire (which has been using a policy of nonlegal immigration into the U.S. for the past two hundred years in order to take control by numerical superiority) on the other, there are always people who want to take over, and who see expanded federal power as the easiest way to do it.

It always amazes me that there are people who actually expect those in control of the legal system to be intellectually honest. The system exists to protect the wealth and power of those who already have wealth and power. Why on Earth would they want the reality to match the documentation? They want reality to match what they want reality to be. And, as Chairman Mao said, "Power is a flower that grows from the end of a gun.", and the U.S. has the big guns. Why do they do what they do? Because they can. And people are flocking to join up with the Big Guns, because most people are not socially responsible, intellectually honest, or patriotic; their lives are governed by the principles of shame, fear, and guilt, and they think they can get better by getting cozy with the power structure. And they don't care what happens to you, your home, or your family.

Which gets us back to the question of interpretation of the Second Amendment, specifically. All governments based on tyrannical structures have an imperative, an inherent need, to disarm the citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with crime or the threat of crime. It is merely self-protection on the part of those who control the status quo. Increased crime is actually a good thing to them. Anything that creates an increase in fear, shame, and/or guilt, creates more power for them. And crime increases fear. More fear, more police. And more police means more work for lawyers (heh, heh).

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
Which gets us back to the question of interpretation of the Second Amendment, specifically. All governments based on tyrannical structures have an imperative, an inherent need, to disarm the citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with crime or the threat of crime. It is merely self-protection on the part of those who control the status quo. Increased crime is actually a good thing to them. Anything that creates an increase in fear, shame, and/or guilt, creates more power for them. And crime increases fear. More fear, more police. And more police means more work for lawyers (heh, heh).

Therein, boys and girls, lies the simple truth of it all.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Which gets us back to the question of interpretation of the Second Amendment, specifically. All governments based on tyrannical structures have an imperative, an inherent need, to disarm the citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with crime or the threat of crime. It is merely self-protection on the part of those who control the status quo. Increased crime is actually a good thing to them. Anything that creates an increase in fear, shame, and/or guilt, creates more power for them. And crime increases fear. More fear, more police. And more police means more work for lawyers (heh, heh).

Interesting you would state this considering firearms laws have become more liberal over the years, and yet the status quo continues to be maintained. How do you explain this discrepency? One would think that in order to maintain the status quo, that there would be an eroding of the Second Amendment, or its application, but instead, we have a Supreme Court of the United States which has as of late affirmed an individuals 'right' to bear arms in D.C., as well as Chicago.

 

[rushcreek2]

The Declaration of Independence is a "founding document".

The Constitution of these 50 United States IS UNITED STATES LAW.

The term "founding document" applied to either the federal, or any of the several states' constitutions is a gross mistatement of fact. Constitutions are in fact LAW.

Any court decision based upon a MISinterpretation of the 2A as anything short of an ABSOLUTE provision of law declaring that the right of the people ( citizens) of these United States to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - constitutes a violation of FEDERAL LAW.

United States LAW (the federal constitution) provides a LAWFUL mechanism for amending THAT LAW. Until such time as the 2A is LAWFULLY amended through ratification by 3/4 of the states to actually ALLOW any specified infringement - "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. " remains THE LAW pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms within the jurisdiction of these 50 United States.

State and federal courts do in fact violate respective state, and federal law routinely. Such judgements constitute usurpation of power regardless of the high, and mightily refined English employed to justify same.

 

[VW_Factor]

Its clearly written. It only means what it says.

The intent of our founding fathers can be read and understood in the Anti-Federalist papers and the Articles on Confederation.

Anyone who thinks it means something more or otherwise not quite literally what it says.. Is simply making up stories because of some motive, or they have reading comprehension problems.

 

[user]

Interesting you would state this considering firearms laws have become more liberal over the years, and yet the status quo continues to be maintained. How do you explain this discrepency? One would think that in order to maintain the status quo, that there would be an eroding of the Second Amendment, or its application, but instead, we have a Supreme Court of the United States which has as of late affirmed an individuals 'right' to bear arms in D.C., as well as Chicago.

That was a trick on two levels.

As to the first level, this whole idea of applying the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states under the guise of "due process" was designed to integrate all governments, state and federal, into one hierarchically structured government. Under the Constitution, as written, it's as if King George III had been chopped into chunks, and his sovereign power was subdivided first between federal and state and secondly among the three branches. Federal power is not the same as state power. The United States has no authority, for example, in the areas of health, education, public welfare, or the police power; those are exclusively state powers. And states have no authority to regulate commerce going across their boundaries with other states. By first pretending that "substance" and "procedure" are the same thing (it's like confusing the rules for Gin Rummy with the numbers on the cards you play with), and stating that the rules apply the same way to the states as to the U.S., the U.S. Sup. Ct. has broken down the division of powers designed to protect us. Take the First Amendment, for example. A state has the power to regulate speech under the Constitution as written; a state can say that a person has the right to sue for defamation, for example. But with the advent of "substantive due process", the state's power to regulate speech subject to its own constitution, has been made equal to that of the U.S., but the trick is the importation of the concept that the Heller opinion calls, "reasonable regulation". By applying relaxed standards to the states, then asserting that the same degree of relaxation applies to the U.S., the whole concept of "rights" was thrown out the window.

The second trick was the assertion that the "selective incorporation doctrine" no longer applies, and now the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states except to the extent that the Sup. Ct. has ruled otherwise, and the application of that phrase, "reasonable regulation" to the Bill of Rights.

So, what I'm saying is that the Heller decision was not a liberalization of the right to keep and bear arms, it was the destruction of that right, and the last nail driven into the coffin of Federalism. A right that is subject to "reasonable regulation" is not a right.

 

[We-the-People]

Interesting you would state this considering firearms laws have become more liberal over the years, and yet the status quo continues to be maintained. How do you explain this discrepency? One would think that in order to maintain the status quo, that there would be an eroding of the Second Amendment, or its application, but instead, we have a Supreme Court of the United States which has as of late affirmed an individuals 'right' to bear arms in D.C., as well as Chicago.

I'm not sure how one can make the statement that "firearms laws have become more liberal over the years". When this country was formed there was NO gun control. Then a few cities and towns passed "check your firearms at with the Sheriff" type rules...interestingly, just like today, the criminals ignored those rules. With the end of the civil war came the first major restrictions on firearms. Belle Meade (spelling) TN for instance decried (still on the books as of a year or two ago as demonstrated by oneof our members) that the only way to go about the city armed was if one carried the Army and Navy model of 1841 pistol OPENLY IN THE HAND. This was intended to 1) prevent the carrying of firearms and 2) anyone brazen enough to carry one in their hand could be shot since they had a gun in their hand.

Firearms restrictions continued as a local/state issue until the unconstitutional NFA was passed and it was downhill from that point forward. Only recently have we BEGUN to turn back some of the MANY restrictions upon our RIGHT to keep AND BEAR arms.

So "over the years" restrictions became increasingly aggregious and only recently has there been a pushback and some victories. Still, most states (all but 3 or 4??) require a "permission slip" to carry concealed (an infringement) and many require a "permission slip" to purchase or own a firearm, these are infringments.

If one needs permission to exercise a right then it is not a right. I think the Constitution is quite clear that we have a RIGHT to keep and BEAR, with no arbitrary restrictions upon time and place, and therefore no "permission slip" can be justified in order for us to exercise that right.

While controversial, I posit that this RIGHT extends to all Americans and so, when a convict has served his sentence, he too has the RIGHT to keep and bear. Have we noticed the massive increase in teh criminalization of acts? The increase in the number of actions which the government dictates shall forfeit your 2nd amendment rights? The increase in non violent/non person crimes which are now felonies and thus restrict 2nd amendment rights?

It is time to recognize that the criminals are going to carry regardless of restrictions against them and that law abiding citizens (the entire remainder) must have unfettered access to the weaponry our founding fathers intended them to be able to defend themselves with. When 10 or 15 0r 20 percent of the law abiding citizens of this country are armed daily, crime will decrease as criminals discover that crime truly does not pay because they cannot determine if that "soft target" is really that soft...or if they possess the means by which to reclaim our lost civil society.

 

[eye95]

Don't be fooled by the illusion of "liberalization" of gun laws.

You don't want your oppressor to give you freedoms; you want him to give you release.

When someone who has robbed you of a measure of Liberty gives you a portion back, he establishes his control over you.

The only reliefs we should seek should be the courts striking down and the legislatures removing laws that infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear arms. More laws that list what we may do merely serve to justify the authority of the government to make laws that tell us what we may not do.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Any court decision based upon a MISinterpretation of the 2A as anything short of an ABSOLUTE provision of law declaring that the right of the people ( citizens) of these United States to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - constitutes a violation of FEDERAL LAW.

There are no absolutes, that is the first thing I reject about the above line. Next, Federal Law, with regard to its Constitutionality, along with state law with regard to the Constitution of the United States is Found to be unConstitutional, or Constitutional by the Supreme Court of the Unites States. It is not the place of SCOTUS to make Law, rather, it is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, understand what the intent of the law or Law is, and by that make a finding as to whether or not the Law or law is Constitutional.

State and federal courts do in fact violate respective state, and federal law routinely. Such judgements constitute usurpation of power regardless of the high, and mightily refined English employed to justify same.

'They' are in violation of the Law - really, Federal Law is what matters here - only after they have been Found to have been in violation. This has no thing to do with linguistics, and everything to do with theory of an applications legality versus what the Finding is regarding the application.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

That was a trick on two levels.

As to the first level, this whole idea of applying the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states under the guise of "due process" was designed to integrate all governments, state and federal, into one hierarchically structured government. Under the Constitution, as written, it's as if King George III had been chopped into chunks, and his sovereign power was subdivided first between federal and state and secondly among the three branches. Federal power is not the same as state power. The United States has no authority, for example, in the areas of health, education, public welfare, or the police power; those are exclusively state powers. And states have no authority to regulate commerce going across their boundaries with other states. By first pretending that "substance" and "procedure" are the same thing (it's like confusing the rules for Gin Rummy with the numbers on the cards you play with), and stating that the rules apply the same way to the states as to the U.S., the U.S. Sup. Ct. has broken down the division of powers designed to protect us. Take the First Amendment, for example. A state has the power to regulate speech under the Constitution as written; a state can say that a person has the right to sue for defamation, for example. But with the advent of "substantive due process", the state's power to regulate speech subject to its own constitution, has been made equal to that of the U.S., but the trick is the importation of the concept that the Heller opinion calls, "reasonable regulation". By applying relaxed standards to the states, then asserting that the same degree of relaxation applies to the U.S., the whole concept of "rights" was thrown out the window.

The second trick was the assertion that the "selective incorporation doctrine" no longer applies, and now the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states except to the extent that the Sup. Ct. has ruled otherwise, and the application of that phrase, "reasonable regulation" to the Bill of Rights.

So, what I'm saying is that the Heller decision was not a liberalization of the right to keep and bear arms, it was the destruction of that right, and the last nail driven into the coffin of Federalism. A right that is subject to "reasonable regulation" is not a right.

I am just going to cut through all this stuff, and state that if the Federal Government's will is to relieve the states of their so-called 'power', then it can, and would be done. Do I believe that it is right for the Federal Government to mandate that all states do 'this that, and the other',...it depends. At the heart of all of this is the question: Does the Federal Government have the Authority to mandate, at will (through appropriate legislative avenues) what the extend of a states sovereignty is? My answer is, Yes.