The Second Amendment, as defined in "The Citizen's Almanac"..

[SilentStalker]

Sam I think you misunderstood what I am saying. The beauty of the Constitution is its simplistic complexity! My point is, I don't see the point in having laws if they constantly change. You have to have some absolute. If what was legal today is made illegal tomorrow and then legal again next week then what the heck is the point? There has to be some kind of absolute and at the very least a process to change it. The problem is they are not going through correct channels to amend it. They just change it however they see fit. Once those that enforce the laws make the laws to justify their own ends then it can no longer be law. You see what I am saying? Who enforces the law on those enforcers of the law? It seems that there are no checks anymore! And any law is only good if people are willing to follow it. If rights are taken away and laws are passed accordingly that are not in agreement with the people then that kind of starts to go completely against the ideals of a democratic republic. If its no longer by the people for the people then it starts to look like something much uglier! Seems to me like there is a ruling class that is making up and enforcing things as they see fit. That goes against everything that this nation was built on. We have to get back to the basics!

 

[Sam1911]

Well, for better or worse, that's our history for you. This is nothing -- AT ALL -- new. Many, many prominent and even beloved Presidents (and other politicos) have twisted, tortured, and broken on the rack our treasured Constitution. The things such heroes as Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson (just to name three) did to it -- in full understanding that they WERE violating it -- make anything going on today very pale in comparison.

(Some light reading on T.R.: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2002/11/chapman.pdf)

The law and the Executive have always taken the path of, "Constitutional, if you can make me!"

As I said, your grand-daddy's grand-daddy didn't know what it was like to live under the Constitution as it was originally written.

 

[Akita1]

Wow. Plenty of interpretation here. I'll stick with SCOTUS - that's how the Republic works...plus the appeal process of course.

 

[mnrivrat]

If you have no bone to pick with me, then perhaps you shouldn't tossed in the bone.[/QUOTE

You left out the word "personal" . If you take my opinion as personal I guess that's your peragative . You obviously have more time than I have to devote to this thread . That, along with my simple purpose for commenting in this thread was to give my personal opinion, and not to try to educate an educated man.
It's not your kowledge, it's your opinion that I disagree with. Lawyers make a living by complicating what many folks see as simple. You remind me of that trait. Nothjing Personal. I am content to look at the sky and call it blue. There are those who would argue forever on what shade of blue it is. I haven't the time to do so.

Nor do I use the Enlish language as a playing field in which each letter, comma. etc. needs to be defined by pages of retoric . I guess I would make a lousy lawyer.

 

[JRH6856]

OK, nothing personal.

Nor do I use the Enlish language as a playing field in which each letter, comma. etc. needs to be defined by pages of retoric .

These things all have meaning, otherwise their use is meaningless. And if we don't use the same definitions or don't understand the definitions being used, all meaning is lost and there is no communication, just a lot of noise. My opinions are open to change, but it takes more than noise.

I guess I would make a lousy lawyer.

Having not been to law school, so would I. (as has been made clear to me many times by forum members who are lawyers)

 

[beatledog7]

And if the STOP directive were followed literally with no interpretation or explanation, no one would ever get anywhere.

Nonsense. It does not say "stop and remain here forever." It says simply stop. Stop means stop. It does not mean roll past slowly, and it does not mean stop and never go again.

Everyone learns in driving school ( or from the study guide or a parent or wherever) that traffic laws universally use the stop sign to direct drivers to come to a full stop then proceed when it is safe to do so. The sign represents that exact direction without the need for further explanation.

Not a single person who's been alive in the last 200 years ever lived under the strict wording of the US Constitution. We have no possible way of even visualizing what our country would be today if we did.

Sam, for 200+ years we've had the ability to amend the Constitution, and we have done so 27 times. That's less than once every ten years on average, yet look at all the laws and regulations we've had thrust upon us during that same time span. Yes, it is hard to amend the Constitution, and that was how it was designed to be so we wouldn't muck around with the system willy-nilly.

To reiterate...would you want to live under the Constitution, knowing that it, including the 2nd Amendment, was NOT incorporated against your state?

Yes, I would. What has incorporation done that free markets and free states would not have accomplished? 2A says "shall not be infringed" without any specification of who shall not because it was intended that no entity that was party to the document (including the states, since it was ratified by the states) had the power to infringe upon RKBA. In contrast, 1A says "Congress shall make no law..." If there's not supposed to be a difference, why spell out who can't in 1A and not do the same in 2A? There are (should we say "were") differences between federal and state power by design and intent. I do not base that on anyone's interpretation, but only on the words as they are clearly written.

 

[JRH6856]

. It does not say "stop and remain here forever." It says simply stop. Stop means stop. It does not mean roll past slowly, and it does not mean stop and never go again.

That is certainly the prevalent interpretation. But it my no means the only possible one.