hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
And the main rule of the collective is that all powers not delegated to the US are reserved to Virginia. That is the rule of law, and I will not get used to anything else.
The 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Deathrider1579
- Start date
- Status
And the main rule of the collective is that all powers not delegated to the US are reserved to Virginia. That is the rule of law, and I will not get used to anything else.
RealGun
Member
There were many cases of President Lincoln and the Congress punting during and after the Civil War. It is now the law of the land. You only go back to an earlier regime if you won't accept what happened. Resisting the 14th Amendment means you have to concede the parts you like, rights the Feds have protected from State abuse..
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
The 14th "Amendment" is Rule of Law?
It failed in the Senate,
It failed in the House,
It failed in the North,
And it failed in the South,
If failed the People, and States, and yet
It passed at the point of a bayonet.
It failed in the Senate,
It failed in the House,
It failed in the North,
And it failed in the South,
If failed the People, and States, and yet
It passed at the point of a bayonet.
Deathrider1579
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 198
No, if I was running things Manson would have been pushing up the flowers since the 70s (whenever he did his killing thing).
I am not sure on Nukes and Chems and Bios, if a despotic government got desperate enough to use Nukes etc on his own land how could you over turn him? But Nukes etc. are in the hands of the .gov and that is probably the way it should stay. However I would be all for people having Ballistic Missile Interceptors, Laser batteries (if they ever get those things to work right) and other counter measures. As long as the people have something to effectively counter everything the government has, I would be happy.
Just think about that They have tanks we could have effective anti-tank mines, rockets, whatever. They have jet fighters we have Stingers, AAA, WW2 88s lol And it goes on!
"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"
Arms = Weapons
Granted there is a form of infringement in place if you can't go buy a tank with 30 million of your hard earned cash, and if you want to fight that point fine I would be happy if I could own one too!
The only problem would be people like Bill Gates or a company like PETA getting their paws on a tank or 50 and thinking they could take over.
A giant smack down by the people and the US military would be in order but it would be a pain in the a$$ in any event.
If you can't comprehend "Arms shall not be infringed" maybe ChestyP was right and I am wasting my breath.
-DR
PS. I ain't a Libertarian, I have extreme disagreement with them on their borders and abortion policies.
I am a pissed off Republican
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I believe that our weapons of mass destruction do not belong to the government but belong to the people. I assume that is what you meant ... it's not as if our King has nukes. It may seem like a fine distinction but I believe this is the point of the Second Amendment - that the military must be subordinate to the civil power.
Any child can take the Second Amendment out of context and assume that "shall not be infringed" means "by anyone". I used to "comprehend" it in that way, but I have learned a lot since then. If you cannot comprehend that it means "shall not be infringed BY CONGRESS", then you most certainly are wasting your breath.
Deathrider1579
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 198
So a state government can tell you to "turn them all in" ...?
Doesn't sound like a free country to me!
BTW most of our gun laws are federal.
-DR
RealGun
Member
The desired outcome had already been decided (by the Union). Good thing too. The Republic wasn't worth spit at the time. Most got over it.
ksnecktieman
Member
Please stop feeding the troll.
Just take his word for it that "right of the people" means something different in the first amendment, than it does in the second.
That really does make it a living document, to have words change meaning as it progresses.
Saying any thing more would be a waste of time when words have no fixed meaning.
Just take his word for it that "right of the people" means something different in the first amendment, than it does in the second.
That really does make it a living document, to have words change meaning as it progresses.
Saying any thing more would be a waste of time when words have no fixed meaning.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Okay hugh. I was technically a political science major, so I should know this, but I didn't really attend class that much, so I don't.
I was always taught that federal law takes precedence over state law. In fact, I thought there was a big deal with this some years ago, when California tried to legalize marijhana, and the federal powers told them they could not. So what I want to know then is really, if the federal government is prohibited from infringing on the RKBA, then what allows the state governments to?
I was always taught that federal law takes precedence over state law. In fact, I thought there was a big deal with this some years ago, when California tried to legalize marijhana, and the federal powers told them they could not. So what I want to know then is really, if the federal government is prohibited from infringing on the RKBA, then what allows the state governments to?
One of Many
Member
A very good explanation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, is found in book written by Akhil Reed Amar and Les Adams, "The Bill of Rights Primer". Chapter IX covers the 14th Amendment, on pages 195 - 218.
It was specifically intended to apply the right to keep and bear arms, among the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, to the freed slaves and other non-citizens living in the states, who were being prohibited from doing so by the former slave states. The intent was that ALL of the first 8 Amendments of the US Constitution, were to be applied to each individual resident, and enforced against each State, and not just the US Congress.
As to the argument that the 14th Amendment FAILED, and was forced upon the former slave states at the point of a bayonet: The southern slave states had seceded from the United States, and were not at the time of the confirmation of that amendment, a part of the United States. They were a conquered and occupied territory, and could not be included in the ratification process as States of the United States of America, until they met certain terms dictated by the victor in that war, and were readmitted as states.
It was specifically intended to apply the right to keep and bear arms, among the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, to the freed slaves and other non-citizens living in the states, who were being prohibited from doing so by the former slave states. The intent was that ALL of the first 8 Amendments of the US Constitution, were to be applied to each individual resident, and enforced against each State, and not just the US Congress.
As to the argument that the 14th Amendment FAILED, and was forced upon the former slave states at the point of a bayonet: The southern slave states had seceded from the United States, and were not at the time of the confirmation of that amendment, a part of the United States. They were a conquered and occupied territory, and could not be included in the ratification process as States of the United States of America, until they met certain terms dictated by the victor in that war, and were readmitted as states.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
No, a State government cannot ban guns, but that is not because of the Second Amendment but regardless of the Second Amendment. And I doubt that most of our gun laws are federal, I think you are mistaken.
So ... The original intent was not worth a spit?
And you should hear yourself - "the desired outcome" ... Didn't I just explain to you that the desired outcome was that the 14th "Amendment" fail? Would YOU care to be honest and admit that when you say "the desired outcome" you mean desired by a region, not desired by the people who had the power to amend the Constitution?
Nonsense. I believe in the original intent. Why don't you go troll somewhere else?
You were taught wrong. Federal law does not take precedence over State law. The US is supreme in limited enumerated delegated powers, and each State is otherwise supreme. If Federal and State laws collide, the fed law does not automatically take precedence, but rather it is a question of who has jurisdiction over that particular issue. (And the States have jurisdiction by default, whereas the US has the burden of showing that it is delegated the jurisdiction)
The States delegated certain powers to a federal government and reserved the rest. The States did not delegate to the US jurisdiction over gun control, so it is reserved to each State.
The 14th was intended to fail.
That is simply not true. As I have already explained, the Southern States were in the Union, and they DID vote on the 14th "Amendment". But when the 14th failed, the Southern States were kicked out of the Union. And then when only the North was left to vote on it, the 14th still failed.
Last edited:
RealGun
Member
I would say that it had been proven not to work. Once you add the 14th and the 17th with income tax, State sovereignty became a joke. States are administrative levels of the United States and subservient to it.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Well, it looks to me like you do not believe in limited federal government, yet you try to wrap yourself in the Constitution.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
The 14th sure is working for undocumented workers...
RealGun
Member
You might be right. I believe that crossing State lines should be of no real consequence to my rights.
Quote from Hugh:
"(I would like to point out that as of yesterday those in the Peoples Republic of California no longer have a 4th amendment, but they haven’t had several of the others for several years now so no biggie for them) "
Hugh, they still have the right, as it was granted by God. Thy still have the Amendment, as it was set forth in the Constitution, and Article VI says:
"...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE, SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING in the Constiutiton OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.
So any ruling restricting the IVth Amendment is simply unconstitutional, without question. A ruling that restricted the rights of the People under the IVth Amendment, could only be found Constitutional by a disingenous Judge, legislating from the bench for his own political purposes. That is why the impeachment of civil office holders is also set out in the Constitution, since there is an oath to the Constitution that all of them must take in order to enter office.
As you point out, the California Judges, and the Legislature of California, has dictated from the bench, and passed in the Legislature, hundreds of Unconstitutional laws.
The problem, is though, not that the Amendment is lost. It is still there, as is Article VI.
The problem is that California voters will not replace the morons writing laws that are totally Unconstitutional, and simply give up like a bunch of sheep.
The Judges, (instead of being impeached for blatantly violating their oaths to "preserve" (that contract) are allowed instead, to continue writing assinine edicts from the bench, specifically due to the fact that the voters in California won't demand their legislature impeach those Judges, nor in cases of Federal Judges, demand that their Congressman introduce impeachment in the U.S. Congress of such judges who do not exhibit "good behavior".
It will continue this way, until the entire Country, is in as total a Police State as is California.
(Oh wait, that's already happened. Never mind, I apologize)
"(I would like to point out that as of yesterday those in the Peoples Republic of California no longer have a 4th amendment, but they haven’t had several of the others for several years now so no biggie for them) "
Hugh, they still have the right, as it was granted by God. Thy still have the Amendment, as it was set forth in the Constitution, and Article VI says:
"...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE, SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING in the Constiutiton OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.
So any ruling restricting the IVth Amendment is simply unconstitutional, without question. A ruling that restricted the rights of the People under the IVth Amendment, could only be found Constitutional by a disingenous Judge, legislating from the bench for his own political purposes. That is why the impeachment of civil office holders is also set out in the Constitution, since there is an oath to the Constitution that all of them must take in order to enter office.
As you point out, the California Judges, and the Legislature of California, has dictated from the bench, and passed in the Legislature, hundreds of Unconstitutional laws.
The problem, is though, not that the Amendment is lost. It is still there, as is Article VI.
The problem is that California voters will not replace the morons writing laws that are totally Unconstitutional, and simply give up like a bunch of sheep.
The Judges, (instead of being impeached for blatantly violating their oaths to "preserve" (that contract) are allowed instead, to continue writing assinine edicts from the bench, specifically due to the fact that the voters in California won't demand their legislature impeach those Judges, nor in cases of Federal Judges, demand that their Congressman introduce impeachment in the U.S. Congress of such judges who do not exhibit "good behavior".
It will continue this way, until the entire Country, is in as total a Police State as is California.
(Oh wait, that's already happened. Never mind, I apologize)
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Sorry, that wasn't me, someone else said that. So I'll let him respond.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
States' Rights are the Bulwark of Liberty
And I believe that it is naive to assume that if we had the same rights in every State that we would have libertarianism throughout the land. If we have the same rights in every State, then we consolidate the States into one sovereignty, and Madison and Jefferson said that to do such a thing would inevitably result in a US that is despotic with respect to our internal affairs and too aggressive with respect to our foreign affairs.
Deathrider1579
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 198
Nope I said it in my first post.
I was being somewhat... sarcastic, but what I was specifically referring to is this http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_152182332.html
So while the 4th Amendment is still "on the books" according the judges here that only applies while the cops think you’re sober.
Sounds a little like date rape to me.
-DR
I was being somewhat... sarcastic, but what I was specifically referring to is this http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_152182332.html
So while the 4th Amendment is still "on the books" according the judges here that only applies while the cops think you’re sober.
Sounds a little like date rape to me.
-DR
silliman89
Member
Hugh -- #28
So you seem to be arguing that you don't have to pay attention to anything passed at the point of a bayonet?
It may interest you to know that throughout history, most laws were passed at the point of a bayonet (or some other pointy object which served the same purpose). Our own Revolution was to make the Declaration of Independence pass. Everyone has to respect the point of the bayonet, either willingly, or real quiet like from 6 feet under.
So you seem to be arguing that you don't have to pay attention to anything passed at the point of a bayonet?
It may interest you to know that throughout history, most laws were passed at the point of a bayonet (or some other pointy object which served the same purpose). Our own Revolution was to make the Declaration of Independence pass. Everyone has to respect the point of the bayonet, either willingly, or real quiet like from 6 feet under.
One of Many
Member
The folling excerpt is from WIKIPEDIA:
While there may have been (and still be) controversy surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, it has clearly been ratified and is in effect. It has been treated by the courts of the land as having full effect, in many cases spread around the country.
It serves no purpose to denigrate the 14th Amendment, just as there is no purpose for people to fly the flag of Dixie in the US today. Refusing to acknowledge the 14th Amendment serves only to identify people as rebels for a lost cause, bitter in defeat, living in the past and unwilling to move into the present and face the future.
While there may have been (and still be) controversy surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, it has clearly been ratified and is in effect. It has been treated by the courts of the land as having full effect, in many cases spread around the country.
It serves no purpose to denigrate the 14th Amendment, just as there is no purpose for people to fly the flag of Dixie in the US today. Refusing to acknowledge the 14th Amendment serves only to identify people as rebels for a lost cause, bitter in defeat, living in the past and unwilling to move into the present and face the future.
RealGun
Member
Well, sorta "in effect". The Second Amendment remains unapplied to the States via the 14A. In that regard, the 14A might as well have been defeated. The irony is that one of the principal purposes of the 14A was to protect gun ownership. The fix was in all the way around.
Darn it all to Heck!!!
Will you all stop butchering the 2nd Amendment? Please. Everyone copies and pastes it into their e-mails, but you are all missing the keys to its interpretation, which makes it soooooo plainly obvious what it means. The secret is.... ready for this...
Capitalization.
Let's look at the 2A for a moment, the way it is actually written, not the way everyone typically transcribes it:
"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."
This is the way it is written in the Bill of Rights. The capitalization is key, as it create subtle differences of meaning in the wording. In keeping with literary convention of the time, the use of capitalization in a noun, like "People" implies that the author is writing about the whole of a group of people or a collective. Meanwhile, using lower case in the word "people" refers to the individuals that make up the collective, but not the collective as a whole.
So based on this convention, the 2A refers to the Militia as a whole, meaning any and all militia are necessary for the security of the entire State. To ensure that the Militia are able to accomplish this goal in an effective and efficient manner, which is what "regulated" may very well mean in the 2A, people must be able to arm themselves. Not the People as a whole, mind you, but the individuals that make up the people. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be armed, just that they should be guaranteed the right to do so if they choose. Also, please notice that "Arms" is also capitalized. This means that people are to be guaranteed the right to possess the collective body of all Arms. Not just muskets, but all weapons of any sort. Swords, guns, tomohawks, pikes, cannon, etc... typically, whatever the heck they want to buy.
Interpretation is case sensitive.
Will you all stop butchering the 2nd Amendment? Please. Everyone copies and pastes it into their e-mails, but you are all missing the keys to its interpretation, which makes it soooooo plainly obvious what it means. The secret is.... ready for this...
Capitalization.
Let's look at the 2A for a moment, the way it is actually written, not the way everyone typically transcribes it:
"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."
This is the way it is written in the Bill of Rights. The capitalization is key, as it create subtle differences of meaning in the wording. In keeping with literary convention of the time, the use of capitalization in a noun, like "People" implies that the author is writing about the whole of a group of people or a collective. Meanwhile, using lower case in the word "people" refers to the individuals that make up the collective, but not the collective as a whole.
So based on this convention, the 2A refers to the Militia as a whole, meaning any and all militia are necessary for the security of the entire State. To ensure that the Militia are able to accomplish this goal in an effective and efficient manner, which is what "regulated" may very well mean in the 2A, people must be able to arm themselves. Not the People as a whole, mind you, but the individuals that make up the people. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be armed, just that they should be guaranteed the right to do so if they choose. Also, please notice that "Arms" is also capitalized. This means that people are to be guaranteed the right to possess the collective body of all Arms. Not just muskets, but all weapons of any sort. Swords, guns, tomohawks, pikes, cannon, etc... typically, whatever the heck they want to buy.
Interpretation is case sensitive.
NineseveN
member
- Status