christiefan915
Catalyst
I think righties haven't thought it through if they think it's okay for those on the list to have guns.
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
I think righties haven't thought it through if they think it's okay for those on the list to have guns.
First off I didn't "omit" anything. I posted selective quotes from what Burger wrote on January 14, 1990 to rebut Burger's December 16, 1991 statement that, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
In less than a year he went from recognizing a nearly unquestionable constitutional right to own guns outside any militia connection to calling any such claim to be a fraud. I really don't look to Burger for any information on the subject of the RKBA or the 2nd Amendment . . . He was completely silent on those issues when he was on the Court and he obviously suffered from dementia or schizophrenia or greed to the point where he compromised his beliefs for a check after leaving the Court.
I've read the entire thread.
I don't give rote boiler-plate answers, I reply with supportable statements that comport with the Constitution, the Supreme Court and law. I'm not insulting you; I treated you as if you could actually comprehend my rebuttals and I fully expected you to reply in kind, with thoughtful and reasoned discourse.
Was my confidence misplaced?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Actually we have.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ployees-are-on-the-terror-watch-list-n2089621
What do you think about Obama employing 72 people at DHS who were on terror watch list?
Did you know Teddy Kennedy was on terror watch list?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
KKKhristiefan, do you think Teddy Kennedy (D) was a terrorist?
The idea that a self proclaimed feminist now claims a special privilege for the mere fact of her sex is truly a head scratcher.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And what happens if someone is on that "list", by mistake??
Just like some people who found out that they were on a "no fly" list and that it was a mistake.
It is clear that the individual ape has no right to bear arms unless in a legal militia. Any fool except a teabag can understand that, surely?
What you quoted is a very specific question pertaining to the foundational principles of the US Constitution and one's understanding of them and adherence to them.
Your statement proves that you do not possess the intelligence to even comprehend the question, let alone answer it.
evince
Truthmatters
can you take rights away?
Your bullshit proves that you are a yes-man who never thinks for himself. Join a militia.
But my bullshit has support in the philosophical, historical and legal underpinnings of the US Constitution.
Your bullshit has no support; it is just the ignorant wishful thinking of a Euro-weenie collectivist who hasn't a clue and couldn't catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Constitution. -- By the second amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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."
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 282-83 (Boston, Little, Brown 2d ed. 1891)
The Constitution. -- By the second amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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."
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 282-83 (Boston, Little, Brown 2d ed. 1891)
The "government" is not "the Constitution".
The framers of the Constitution hated government and thought it a necessary evil.
They intended and hoped that the Constitution would forever chain and bind the government being established by the Constitution.
The government is not the Constitution.
Name calling and unhinged accusations are not a substitute for reasoned discourse.
evince
Truthmatters
they did not hate government you fucking brain dead lying lump of shit.
They hated being ruled by wealthy fucks.
they wanted a BETTER system that included freedom
they called their new invention he USA.
You hate that invention and say it right out fucking loud.
then you act like that invention doesn't include the constitution.
The constitution is government you fucking evil assed traitor to this nation
They hated being ruled by wealthy fucks.
they wanted a BETTER system that included freedom
they called their new invention he USA.
You hate that invention and say it right out fucking loud.
then you act like that invention doesn't include the constitution.
The constitution is government you fucking evil assed traitor to this nation
"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void."
VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)