So you cannot read or understand English? The clause about well regulated militia was put there for a reason. It was not saying every American should have a gun, but that they should be available to those who are part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. You are waving away what the forefathers wrote, because you want to justify the danger that misreading it, has caused. I am sure you can explain what a well regulated militia is, but it not every idiot in the world having a gun. Don't ignore it. You are making yourself look really, really stupid.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Today's lesson in the constitution
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
So you cannot read or understand English? The clause about well regulated militia was put there for a reason. It was not saying every American should have a gun, but that they should be available to those who are part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. You are waving away what the forefathers wrote, because you want to justify the danger that misreading it, has caused. I am sure you can explain what a well regulated militia is, but it not every idiot in the world having a gun. Don't ignore it. You are making yourself look really, really stupid.
there are dozens of pieces of documentation and commentaries from that era that explain QUOTE CLEARLY what they meant by a well regulated militia.
It is also the height of stupidity to believe, even for a second, that the framers of this country would propose that a newly created central government would have any authority over their arms after having just won independence from their previous central government that tried to exert authority over their arms.
So you cannot read or understand English? The clause about well regulated militia was put there for a reason. It was not saying every American should have a gun, but that they should be available to those who are part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. You are waving away what the forefathers wrote, because you want to justify the danger that misreading it, has caused. I am sure you can explain what a well regulated militia is, but it not every idiot in the world having a gun. Don't ignore it. You are making yourself look really, really stupid.
And you are forcing a reading that violates the very foundation of the Constitution. Your reading demands we believe our rights are granted to us and exist only within the frame that they were put in (enumeration).
No aspect of the possession and use of the personal arms of the private citizen was conferred to the federal government. That is the governing principle . . . The right is not what the 2ndA says or what can be "interpreted" from the words of the 2nd Amendment, our rights are retained, held out from the powers granted.
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
SmarterthanYou
rebel
And you are forcing a reading that violates the very foundation of the Constitution. Your reading demands we believe our rights are granted to us and exist only within the frame that they were put in (enumeration).
No aspect of the possession and use of the personal arms of the private citizen was conferred to the federal government. That is the governing principle . . . The right is not what the 2ndA says or what can be "interpreted" from the words of the 2nd Amendment, our rights are retained, held out from the powers granted.
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
oh, look at that domer? a supreme court reference less than 10 years from ratification that declares at least one right unalienable. but they don't really exist, do they?
oh, look at that domer? a supreme court reference less than 10 years from ratification that declares at least one right unalienable. but they don't really exist, do they?
I was hopeful the Latin would be the compelling part; that rights are "not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution". Again, that is the very meaning of the word; exceptions to powers not granted.
Un/inalienable has no meaning whatsoever without accepting that rights are inherent and existing outside and independent of any government or governing system or that system's written code.
These leftists can't begin to wrap their heads around the most basic of concepts; there's no way they will understand the big picture.
Except in Cruikshank (1876) where the SCOTUS discussed the right to keep and bear arms of two former slaves, then citizens, who were armed in public for self-defense from the KKK and Night Riders, who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched in a event called the Colfax Massacre.
From the link:
"The Colfax Massacre is the bloodiest single incident in the Reconstruction period, according to historian Eric Foner. On this day in 1873, about 300 white Louisianans armed with rifles and a cannon surrounded the courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, attempting to seize power from African-American local officials and a group of freedmen and former Union soldiers who were defending the town government. Shots rang out, and after a skirmish, the black defenders, overmatched and outgunned, attempted to flee the courthouse. Many were shot as they tried to escape. Others were taken prisoner, and subsequently killed by their captors. Estimates vary widely, but it appears that at least 80 black Americans were killed that day—many in cold blood—by terrorists seeking to destroy the Reconstruction government in Louisiana. The perpetrators of this violence were prosecuted by the federal government but never convicted of a crime, which only served to embolden terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and other groups seeking to restore racial hierarchy to the South.
The federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the Colfax Massacre went all the way to the Supreme Court, which resulted in one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, United States v. Cruikshank."
This happened in Louisiana in 1873, a state with no official state militia -- it being disbanded by the 39th Congress. Even if there was a state militia the two Black citizens would have been barred from enrolling / serving by federal and state law. No possible militia link or dependency can be read into Cruikshank or Presser or Miller or Lewis . . . SCOTUS never embraced any "collective right" interpretation; SCOTUS has only recognized an individual right unconnected to any militia.
Please learn some history instead of parroting anti-gun made-up bullshit.
The case revolved around individuals depriving others of 2nd Amendment rights, not the State. The court also said they had to turn to municipal legislation, not the Feds. That legislation said the right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Hilarious that you would present one of the worst SCOTUS decisions, most of which has been overturned, to make your case.
Cut and paste elsewhere, loser. This was a laugher.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
1. where was cruikshank overturned?
2. self defense IS a lawful purpose,
3. the constitution does NOT grant rights, it protects natural and inalienable rights......
2. self defense IS a lawful purpose,
3. the constitution does NOT grant rights, it protects natural and inalienable rights......
Does gravity pre-exist Newton's law or was it created by it and qualified by it and conditioned upon Newton's description of gravity?
Those fundamental rights of the US citizen are of similar nature.
The people possessed and exercised those rights before the Constitution was put to parchment.
Because no power was granted to government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, those rights remain in the people's possession without modification, qualification or condition. They are called "retained" rights.
In order for something to be considered "retained" it must be held out, reserved from inclusion from something else that came into existence AFTER the interest being "retained" . . . The term implies an order of appearance / existence correct?
What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?
What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Why do you argue the absurd notion that the enumeration of a specific right can be used to deny and disparage that right?
ETA: Why no response to post 213?
Do you have any rebuttal or are you conceding that you are wrong?
Gravity and Newton? Are you fucking kidding?
I have to stop there, as I am laughing so hard I can’t read through the tears.
Thanjs for the belly laugh, moron!
The case revolved around individuals depriving others of 2nd Amendment rights, not the State. The court also said they had to turn to municipal legislation, not the Feds.
Correct. That's precisely why Cruikshank is considered such a horrible decision. Congress sought to protect Blacks from the actions of states like Louisiana. The state militias were the enforcement arm of the Black Codes and they were particularity brutal. Congress disbanded the state militias to try to stop the abuses. Problem was, the same guys just put on hoods and continued to do what they were doing before as militia.
Federal laws had been enacted after the 14th Amendment to further protect Blacks, the Enforcement Act and the Anti-KKK Act being the strongest. SCOTUS in Cruikshank ignored those laws and enforced the status quo of Black subjugation. The holding set back civil rights and delayed their recognition for 100 years; the facts of the case do not support the holding / decision (Just like Dred Scott).
That legislation said the right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."
No, that's quoting the indictment of the KKK members that the Court is examining.
This is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Correct. Ive been consistently saying this . . . The right to arms is not granted or created by the 2nd Amendment; it is a pre-existing right.
The Court in Cruikshank clearly equates the Freemen's "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" defined in the indictment with the right recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment. The "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" is the "it" that the Court refers to when speaking about the 2nd Amendment says / directs / forbids (emphasis added):
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. 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. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to [local or state enforcement] . . . "
Just to repeat in the most direct and unambiguous manner; the "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" of two Freeman in 1873 Louisiana, is the exact same "right of the people to keep and bear arms " secured by the 2nd Amendment. The Court makes this clear just 10 years later in Presser when it quotes Cruikshank but removes the case specific words and substitutes the familiar text of the 2nd Amendment:
" '. . . in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. . . ."
On the topic of "pre-existing rights" and them not being "granted", you would do yourself a service and read the Court's statements about the 1st Amendment / right to assemble in Cruikshank. This was count one of the indictment. The Court introduces this by saying (note the similar form):
"The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their "lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose."
About the right to assemble the Court said (selected quotes, by all means read the original case text):
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . . The Government of the United States, when established, found it in existence, . . .
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. . . ."
So, we see the same reasoning about rights as with the right to arms. In fact, the Court believes the legal arguments is gives regarding the right to assemble can be read to continue through the right to arms. Remember, the Court begins its right to arms / 2nd Amendment examination with, "The second and tenth counts are equally defective".
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
.
So, the question that begs from the previous post is, do you assign your belief about the right to arms to the right to assemble?
Really the question is wider. Since the Court used nearly the same reasoning to negate each count of the Cruikshank indictment, I must ask, do you believe citizens really possess any rights?
Here are the rights (as defined in the indictment) at issue in Cruikshank, which ones don't exist?
If you are gonna be narrow and focus on one right just to cut one out, be careful with that axe, Eugene . . .
.
Really the question is wider. Since the Court used nearly the same reasoning to negate each count of the Cruikshank indictment, I must ask, do you believe citizens really possess any rights?
Here are the rights (as defined in the indictment) at issue in Cruikshank, which ones don't exist?
"[T]heir respective free exercise and enjoyment of their lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the said United States for a peaceable and lawful purpose.'"
The "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."
The right to be free from deprivation, "of their respective several lives and liberty of person, without due process of law."
The right of, "free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property' enjoyed by white citizens."
To be free "in the exercise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges, immunities, and protection granted and secured to them respectively as citizens of the said United States, and as citizens of the said State of Louisiana, by reason of and for and on account of the race and color' of the said persons."
The right of, "the free exercise and enjoyment of the several and respective right and privilege to vote at any election to be thereafter by law had and held by the people in and of the said State of Louisiana."
To not be, "put in great fear of bodily harm, injure, and oppress' the same persons, 'because and for the reason' that, having the right to vote, they had voted."
And finally, all the rights listed in the Constitution; "in their several and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all, and singular and several rights and privileges granted and secured' to them 'by the constitution and laws of the United States."
The "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."
The right to be free from deprivation, "of their respective several lives and liberty of person, without due process of law."
The right of, "free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property' enjoyed by white citizens."
To be free "in the exercise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges, immunities, and protection granted and secured to them respectively as citizens of the said United States, and as citizens of the said State of Louisiana, by reason of and for and on account of the race and color' of the said persons."
The right of, "the free exercise and enjoyment of the several and respective right and privilege to vote at any election to be thereafter by law had and held by the people in and of the said State of Louisiana."
To not be, "put in great fear of bodily harm, injure, and oppress' the same persons, 'because and for the reason' that, having the right to vote, they had voted."
And finally, all the rights listed in the Constitution; "in their several and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all, and singular and several rights and privileges granted and secured' to them 'by the constitution and laws of the United States."
If you are gonna be narrow and focus on one right just to cut one out, be careful with that axe, Eugene . . .
.
Gravity and Newton? Are you fucking kidding?
I have to stop there, as I am laughing so hard I can’t read through the tears.
Thanjs for the belly laugh, moron!
Really, you don't 'get' that gravity is a force that exists outside the human "law" written and cited to define it?
It's no biggie if you fail to understand the metaphor.
I often overestimate the intellectual capacity and intellectual integrity of liberals
I know now, I'm learning, I won't irritate you with anymore indirect concepts and questions that test your critical thinking.
I'm just gonna give you a pass if you ignore my previous two posts; they are above your capacity of understanding.
Correct. That's precisely why Cruikshank is considered such a horrible decision. Congress sought to protect Blacks from the actions of states like Louisiana. The state militias were the enforcement arm of the Black Codes and they were particularity brutal. Congress disbanded the state militias to try to stop the abuses. Problem was, the same guys just put on hoods and continued to do what they were doing before as militia.
Federal laws had been enacted after the 14th Amendment to further protect Blacks, the Enforcement Act and the Anti-KKK Act being the strongest. SCOTUS in Cruikshank ignored those laws and enforced the status quo of Black subjugation. The holding set back civil rights and delayed their recognition for 100 years; the facts of the case do not support the holding / decision (Just like Dred Scott).
No, that's quoting the indictment of the KKK members that the Court is examining.
Correct. Ive been consistently saying this . . . The right to arms is not granted or created by the 2nd Amendment; it is a pre-existing right.
The Court in Cruikshank clearly equates the Freemen's "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" defined in the indictment with the right recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment. The "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" is the "it" that the Court refers to when speaking about the 2nd Amendment says / directs / forbids (emphasis added):
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. 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. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to [local or state enforcement] . . . "
Just to repeat in the most direct and unambiguous manner; the "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" of two Freeman in 1873 Louisiana, is the exact same "right of the people to keep and bear arms " secured by the 2nd Amendment. The Court makes this clear just 10 years later in Presser when it quotes Cruikshank but removes the case specific words and substitutes the familiar text of the 2nd Amendment:
" '. . . in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. . . ."
On the topic of "pre-existing rights" and them not being "granted", you would do yourself a service and read the Court's statements about the 1st Amendment / right to assemble in Cruikshank. This was count one of the indictment. The Court introduces this by saying (note the similar form):
"The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their "lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose."
About the right to assemble the Court said (selected quotes, by all means read the original case text):
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . . The Government of the United States, when established, found it in existence, . . .
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. . . ."
So, we see the same reasoning about rights as with the right to arms. In fact, the Court believes the legal arguments is gives regarding the right to assemble can be read to continue through the right to arms. Remember, the Court begins its right to arms / 2nd Amendment examination with, "The second and tenth counts are equally defective".
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
.
The part about bearing arms for a “lawful purpose” is what does not appear in the Constitution.
Really, you don't 'get' that gravity is a force that exists outside the human "law" written and cited to define it?
It's no biggie if you fail to understand the metaphor.
I often overestimate the intellectual capacity and intellectual integrity of liberals
I know now, I'm learning, I won't irritate you with anymore indirect concepts and questions that test your critical thinking.
I'm just gonna give you a pass if you ignore my previous two posts; they are above your capacity of understanding.
lol
Gravity existed at the beginning of the universe and is independent of whether man ever existed. Unlike rights written BY man, FOR man, especially when it is the context of guns, INVENTED by man. Lousy, albeit humorous, analogy.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
lol
Gravity existed at the beginning of the universe and is independent of whether man ever existed. Unlike rights written BY man, FOR man, especially when it is the context of guns, INVENTED by man. Lousy, albeit humorous, analogy.
are you saying that there's no inherent right to self preservation??????????
are you saying that there's no inherent right to self preservation??????????
lol
Desperate attempt to stretch this topic.
2ND AMENDMENT, moron.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
lol
Desperate attempt to stretch this topic.
2ND AMENDMENT, moron.
so all of those STATE references to DEFENSE OF SELF AND STATE had ZERO influence on the 2nd Amendment?????? you really are that stupid, aren't you?
so all of those STATE references to DEFENSE OF SELF AND STATE had ZERO influence on the 2nd Amendment?????? you really are that stupid, aren't you?
Nope. Never said that the 2nd didn't have defense of the state in mind, illiterate fuckwad. Just the opposite, but with your severely impaired comprehension skills, you fail to understand the concepts.
"Self preservation"? Just fucking priceless!
The part about bearing arms for a “lawful purpose” is what does not appear in the Constitution.
And you keep ignoring the inconvenient fact that SCOTUS keeps reaffirming that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus "it", the right, is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. "Not in any manner dependent" means your entire line of reasoning is illegitimate and anti-constitutional.
And again I'll ask because you ignored it earlier:
What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?
What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Your ridiculous line of reasoning dismisses and ignores the 9th and you then go to an even more absurd place for the 2nd Amendment and argue that the enumeration of that right can be used to deny and disparage the right.
And you keep ignoring the inconvenient fact that SCOTUS keeps reaffirming that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus "it", the right, is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. "Not in any manner dependent" means your entire line of reasoning is illegitimate and anti-constitutional.
And again I'll ask because you ignored it earlier:
What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?
What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Your ridiculous line of reasoning dismisses and ignores the 9th and you then go to an even more absurd place for the 2nd Amendment and argue that the enumeration of that right can be used to deny and disparage the right.
Keep quoting a failed SCOTUS decision for your defense, idiot.
Keep citing gravity and Newton as an analogy.
I love the laughs!
Keep quoting a failed SCOTUS decision for your defense, idiot.
Keep citing gravity and Newton as an analogy.
I love the laughs!
You really have no clue how any of this works.
Keep laughing though.