paperpuncher49
Member
Sounds to me like Obama is surfing YouTube again!
“The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Well, as of this moment, the 2nd Amendment does only apply to the federal government.DammitBoy said:...Now these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government...
these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government
When the case (Parker vs District of Columbia) first came to me, I had been under the impression…that the Second Amendment [the right to bear arms] was a collective right. When I looked into it, I concluded to the contrary.
But the essential point is that the framers of the Constitution were skilled lawyers. The Prefatory Clause describes the Federal purpose. But the operative language, the right to keep and bear arms was perceived by the framers and the way it was drafted is clear that this is true as a preexisting right. It was not a Right granted by the Constitution, it was Right that was protected by the Constitution.
What was the case? I recall that they ruled that the term "the people" refers to citizens i.e those that make up the political body, but I don't recall them saying that it can't refer to them collectively.the supreme court has consistently held that when the constitution uses the word "people" that they mean the individual person, not a state, not a group of people, etc.
The word "PEOPLE" means different things in different contexts. It seems clear to me that in some instances it refers to the people as States ... for instance, the Preamble says that the people ordained the US Constitution, yet it was ratified by the people as States i.e the US Constitution was ordained/ratified by the States. Madison said that the parties to the US Constitution were "the people, but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties". The Founders did use the term "the people" to refer to the people as States. It doesn't follow that they only used it in that manner.PEOPLE: "A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in it's collective apolitical capacity."
If this guy's definition of "people" is accurate, then the 4th amendment gives a state the right to be secure in its persons, houses, papers, and effects, etc? I don't think so. That is not how the founders used the word "people".
the 10th makes it perfectly clear:
The powers not delegated ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
hugh damright said:That much is clear. The 2nd Amendment originally applied only to the feds. That may be about to change because the SCOTUS may be about to rule that the 14th Amendment changed it so that the Second Amendment is now binding against the States.
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained; that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfill every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.
It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this Constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the Constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people.
ConstitutionCowboy said:The "Bill of Rights" was enacted and the amendments to the Constitution ratified because the several states' protections of the rights of the people were inadequate in some states, wrong in some other states, and totally lacking in others. Madison said it best:
the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
gc70 said:Consider only the First Amendment to see how obviously incorrect your conclusion is. Several states had government sanctioned and supported state religions when the Constitution was ratified. Can you even imagine legislators in those states saying that they could not de-establish their state religions, but demanding (demanding, I say) that the US Constitution be amended so that the federal government would prohibit religious establishment in their states.
legaleagle said:In other words, the argument was that the various State Bill of Rights already contained in the state constitutions could not be repealed by the Federal Constitution so those protections are in place and can not be considered within the power of the federal govenment to over ride...
Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.
Then explain this from Madison:
In other words, the argument was that the various State Bill of Rights already contained in the state constitutions could not be repealed by the Federal Constitution so those protections are in place and can not be considered within the power of the federal govenment to over ride...
To which Madison responded that some states do not have a Bill of Rights or have an inadequate Bill of Rights, which would mean that the Feds could do what they wanted in those states.
The most important thing to understand about the second amendment ( as well as the first eight, the bill of rights ) is that the purpose of the second amendment was not to create a right to keep and bear arms where previously no such right had existed but to create a more positive affirmation of the existence of an already existing right. That is to say that the right to keep and bear arms existed before the creation of the Constitution of the US and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence.
IMHO, the right to keep and bear arms is one of the many inherent and unalienable rights we have by dint of being human.
where is the intent of the Framers stated in the Bill of Rights itself? Well, it's implied in the Ninth Amendment, which says that we have other equally important rights that are not listed
DammitBoy stated: "Yes, I've tried explaining the meaning of well regulated several times, to no avail.
Now these clowns want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government and that states could dictate what ever rules they felt like applying to firearm ownership."
Hi Arcy! Nice to see you have come over. I hope our 'YouTube Supergenius' sees this forum.Ive been debating this freakdork for months. He always dodges my questions and tries to make things up and distorts things to make it into his own context. The People as you said is clearly the people of the US, or persons. How could it be a collective right if the framers were individualists? How could ''bear arms'' mean render military service if it would say ''keep and render military service''; where would ''keep'' fit in? Plus I noticed he made up that definition also. The only definitions I could find would argue as follows: ''A well functioning disciplined group of individuals being necessary to the protection of the state from crime, tyranny, and invasion; the right of the persons of the US to own, possess, and carry firearms shall not be infringed ''. You can debate him if you want; but just watch out for his dirty trickery like straw man, deleting comments, running away, side stepping, poisoning the well, and personal attacks.
I generally share rondog's reaction and for very valid reasons. Most of the political commentary on YouTube is shallow in the extreme. I gave up listening to most of the uninformed rantings on YouTube when I realized that YouTube was probably preferred over a print medium because the majority of the speakers were incapable of cogent written expression. Nearly all of the balance of the political commentary on YouTube is simply slick propaganda. In the case of TheYoungTurks, they are quite capable of reading and understanding the Heller decision, but continue to put out blatantly inaccurate and misleading trash. Thus, I don't waste my time listening to the uninformed or to propagandists.