Obama is the worst president in American history
Major Debacle
Frito Pendejo
> Maybe even the world.
Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush. It is
impossible to judge a president except in relation to those who came
before and after. Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I
know that judging from our national character that we will manage to
elect someone even worse.
Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun
by hordes of Chinese barbarians.
CB
"Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
news:wpadnXTjULw8xBLW...@earthlink.com...
There 'is' no relative moral equivalence between President George W. Bush
and President Barrack Hussein Obama.
President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
worldly 'social justice'.
President Bush knows America is unique among all nations, Obama 'feels'
every nation is special and deserves a gold star for effort rather than
accomplishment.
Read what Mitt Romney and Shimon Peres, Israel's former prime minister and
current president has to say about America:
http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-book-no-apology/2010/03/01/id/351304
Obama isn't Presidential, he's Neville Chamberlain
--
CB
How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
hal
>
>"Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
>news:wpadnXTjULw8xBLW...@earthlink.com...
>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>> Maybe even the world.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush. It is impossible
>> to judge a president except in relation to those who came before and
>> after. Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I know that
>> judging from our national character that we will manage to elect someone
>> even worse.
>>
>> Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
>> Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
>> Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun by
>> hordes of Chinese barbarians.
>
>There 'is' no relative moral equivalence between President George W. Bush
>and President Barrack Hussein Obama.
>
>President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
>worldly 'social justice'.
Liar. Bush's loyalties are with his wealthy friends. That's all he
ever cared about.
>
>President Bush knows America is unique among all nations, Obama 'feels'
>every nation is special and deserves a gold star for effort rather than
>accomplishment.
America is "unique"? Why?
>
>Read what Mitt Romney and Shimon Peres, Israel's former prime minister and
>current president has to say about America:
>http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-book-no-apology/2010/03/01/id/351304
Mitt Romney is a self serving Mormon, and Peres is on the hook to the
US to the tune of 2 billion dollars a year in never to be paid back
finanical aid.
>
>Obama isn't Presidential, he's Neville Chamberlain
Obama is a better president than you are capable of grasping.
Strabo
> Major Debacle wrote:
>> Maybe even the world.
>
> Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush.
>
No we didn't.
Bush had a history for those who cared to look. Few did.
Bush's cohorts even ran a website which described his Socialist
leanings.
>
> It is impossible to judge a president except in relation to those
> who came before and after.
>
Not at all.
Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Progressives and Neocons
are easy to spot. Particularly when the candidates advertise
their poison.
Obama:
was raised as a Communists by Communists;
was an agitation and subversion trainer/lawyer;
attended a anti-American Black Nationalist church for 20 years;
ran his campaigns on the destruction of the US;
was notable for his 100% liberal voting record.
Obama was easy to spot to those who cared to look.
>
> Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I
> know that judging from our national character that we will manage to
> elect someone even worse.
>
Obama may be the last president of this republic.
>
> Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
> Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
> Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun by
> hordes of Chinese barbarians.
>
Not in the foreseeable future.
Strabo
> "Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
> news:wpadnXTjULw8xBLW...@earthlink.com...
>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>> Maybe even the world.
>> Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush. It is impossible
>> to judge a president except in relation to those who came before and
>> after. Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I know that
>> judging from our national character that we will manage to elect someone
>> even worse.
>>
>> Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
>> Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
>> Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun by
>> hordes of Chinese barbarians.
>
> There 'is' no relative moral equivalence between President George W. Bush
> and President Barrack Hussein Obama.
>
> President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
> worldly 'social justice'.
>
Bush is a Neocon.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
He could not care less about the American constitution and republic.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and
the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid
case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back.
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
- per Doug Thompson, Harriet Miers report, Dec 9, 2005
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush, a Press conference at the Texas State House,
May 21, 1999
"You don't get everything you want. A
dictatorship would be a lot easier".
- George Bush, Governing Magazine, July 1998
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...
just as long as I'm the dictator..."
-George W. Bush, CNN, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to
Washington as President-Elect
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question
about it".
- George Bush, Business Week, July 30, 2001
"Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you
go out and help us turn out the vote, after we've convinced
the good Americans to vote, and while they're at it, pull
that old George W. lever, if I'm the one, when I put my hand
on the Bible, when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when
they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, *I will
swear to not to uphold the laws of the land*."
-George W. Bush, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2000
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, *and neither do we*."
- George W. Bush, 6 Aug. 2004, Speech to Pentagon Brass
>
> President Bush knows America is unique among all nations, Obama 'feels'
> every nation is special and deserves a gold star for effort rather than
> accomplishment.
>
They both know the US is unique and must be destroyed before a global
government can be imposed.
>
> Read what Mitt Romney and Shimon Peres, Israel's former prime minister and
> current president has to say about America:
> http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-book-no-apology/2010/03/01/id/351304
>
> Obama isn't Presidential, he's Neville Chamberlain
>
Worse than that.
hal
wrote:
>CB wrote:
>> "Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
>> news:wpadnXTjULw8xBLW...@earthlink.com...
>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>> Maybe even the world.
>>> Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush. It is impossible
>>> to judge a president except in relation to those who came before and
>>> after. Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I know that
>>> judging from our national character that we will manage to elect someone
>>> even worse.
>>>
>>> Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
>>> Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
>>> Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun by
>>> hordes of Chinese barbarians.
>>
>> There 'is' no relative moral equivalence between President George W. Bush
>> and President Barrack Hussein Obama.
>>
>> President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
>> worldly 'social justice'.
>>
>
>Bush is a Neocon.
>
>http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>
>He could not care less about the American constitution and republic.
Yet it was you conservatives who put him in office and allowed him to
stay in office for 8 years despite his abuses. Now you're trying to
distance yourself from him by claiming he wasn't a conservative.
Won't work.
Bush is your fault. And this economic messs we are in right now is
because of you people.
Strabo
I've been posting warnings to these NGs for ten years and you haven't
paid attention. I've listed that URL probably fifty times.
>
> Bush is your fault. And this economic messs we are in right now is
> because of you people.
>
Never voted for or supported a Bush.
Bush is Senator Prescott Bush's fault. The senator who was charged
with treason under the Trading With the Enemy act (Hitler) before and
during WWII.
You see, like Obama, the Bushes are anti-America.
hal
wrote:
>> Bush is your fault. And this economic messs we are in right now is
>> because of you people.
> >
>
>Never voted for or supported a Bush.
>
>Bush is Senator Prescott Bush's fault. The senator who was charged
>with treason under the Trading With the Enemy act (Hitler) before and
>during WWII.
So how do you define your conservatism? Examples I mean. Someone who
you would vote for. Libertarian perhaps? You do know that
libertarianism can't exist as a government philosphy. Individual
liberties is antithesis to everything politicians (those who desire
control) stand for. Libertarianism only exists in the minds of
radical fringers who think they can claim they live in a sovereign
country by claiming their trailer park to be a free republic.
>
>You see, like Obama, the Bushes are anti-America.
The Bushes, most definately. But I truly don't think so about Obama.
I still am going to keep hoping the man is capable of, and desireous
of doing the right thing for The People. One thing is for certain,
the right wing has not given the man a chance. And the right wing is
desperate to destroy him as a functioning president, that is also
certain.
nraclaptrap
4ax.com:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=25812D01-18FE-70B2-
A811B1EBD2A3A5EF
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100303_rnc_finance_leadership.html
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Hiccum Blurpaedius
They hate Americans and freedom. Like Ronald Reagan did.
I want the monitoring device out of my back they stuck in my back in
1982. I have a better chance at getting a lobotomy from the
terrorists.
Exterminate the health care mafia.
nraclaptrap
news:92vuo59p7l5c6hs8q...@4ax.com:
>I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>
>If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level one. Try
>harder.
What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
That sounds contradictory to me, Mr. Bleak.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Strabo
> On Mar 4, 5:16 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:55:11 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
>>>>> President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
>>>>> worldly 'social justice'.
>>>> Bush is a Neocon.
>>>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>>>> He could not care less about the American constitution and republic.
>>> Yet it was you conservatives who put him in office and allowed him to
>>> stay in office for 8 years despite his abuses. Now you're trying to
>>> distance yourself from him by claiming he wasn't a conservative.
>>> Won't work.
>> I've been posting warnings to these NGs for ten years and you haven't
>> paid attention. I've listed that URL probably fifty times.
>>
>> >> Bush is your fault. And this economic messs we are in right now is
>>> because of you people.
>> >
>>
>> Never voted for or supported a Bush.
>>
>> Bush is Senator Prescott Bush's fault. The senator who was charged
>> with treason under the Trading With the Enemy act (Hitler) before and
>> during WWII.
>>
>> You see, like Obama, the Bushes are anti-America.
>
> They hate Americans and freedom. Like Ronald Reagan did.
>
Reagan was not in the same category. Reagan was
a well-meaning patriot surrounded by liars and thieves.
>
> I want the monitoring device out of my back they stuck in my back in
> 1982. I have a better chance at getting a lobotomy from the
> terrorists.
>
> Exterminate the health care mafia.
>
Due to government controls, medical insurance is a sham.
Avoid going to doctors. Pay cash when you can't.
nraclaptrap
4ax.com:
>>>I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>>>
>>>If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level one.
>>>Try harder.
>>
>> What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
>
>The ACLU steers pretty clear of 2nd-amendm
ent stuff.
>This is wise.
YOU LIE!
"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court�s decision in D.C. v.
Heller."
Point proven!
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Iarnrod
Stop abusing drugs, righturd.
RichTravsky
>
> "Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
> news:wpadnXTjULw8xBLW...@earthlink.com...
> > Major Debacle wrote:
> >> Maybe even the world.
> >
> > Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush. It is impossible
> > to judge a president except in relation to those who came before and
> > after. Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I know that
> > judging from our national character that we will manage to elect someone
> > even worse.
> >
> > Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
> > Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
> > Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun by
> > hordes of Chinese barbarians.
>
> There 'is' no relative moral equivalence between President George W. Bush
> and President Barrack Hussein Obama.
Duhbya led us into phonyh wars and recessions.
> President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
> worldly 'social justice'.
Duhbya's loyalties were to himself.
> President Bush knows America is unique among all nations, Obama 'feels'
> every nation is special and deserves a gold star for effort rather than
> accomplishment.
Quagmires aren't accomplishments.
> Read what Mitt Romney and Shimon Peres, Israel's former prime minister and
> current president has to say about America:
> http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-book-no-apology/2010/03/01/id/351304
>
> Obama isn't Presidential, he's Neville Chamberlain
He's doing what Duhbya couldn't - kick Taliban ass/
RT
CB
<hal> wrote in message news:4b90323b...@news.newsguy.com...
What's Obama done?
Isn't it the economy, stupid? Jobs?
nraclaptrap
4ax.com:
>The 2nd is clearly no diffrent in intent than the 1st or 3rd or 5th
Actually, the historical context of the Second Amendment is clearly about
preserving the well-regulated militia because it's NECESSARY TO THE
SECURITY OF A STATE. And that's still true. In natural disasters,
riots, insurrections, invasions, it's the National Guard that comes to
the rescue - not gunlooms sitting around in lawn chairs, then running
away when the shooting begins, or when the floods hit town.
The only right granted by the Second Amendment - and it is not granted by
the gods - is that of the whole body of the people to use the well-
regulated militia, today's National Guard, while prohibiting the federal
government from disarming it or making it ineffective by sending the NG
overseas for numerous tours of duty for fake wars.
>.... and therefore covers everybody, indivudally and collectively.
Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
Framers of that article would have said so.
Just show us where George Washington, himself a longtime militia
commander, ever said anything about an individual right to have guns
unconnected to militia service anywhere in the US Constitution.
Or show us where Madison said anything in all his writings about an
individual gun right of any kind in the Second Amendment or anywhere else
in the Constitution.
If you want an individual right to have guns under the US Constitution,
then repeal the Second Amendment and pass a 28th Amendment that uses
language commonly found in state bills of rights granted individual gun
rights to state citizens.
If you don't have the balls or the ability to do that, then you should
just stop lying about the Constitution and enjoy your extremely liberal
state gun rights while you can.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Shadenfreude
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>The only right granted by the Second Amendment - and it is not granted by
>the gods - is that
No right is granted to anyone or anything by the Second Amendment.
Read your Supreme Court rulings, if you can get your flabby arms to
hold the book up that long.
Gunner Asch
> However, 2nd amendment aside, there ARE other amendments.
> The WHOLE bill-o-rights needs constant defence. The NRA
> doesn't do that, it has a narrow focus, so almost all we
> have is the ACLU. Don't throw the baby out with the
> bathwater, so to speak. The 2nd is no damned good without
> the others.
And the others are no damned good without the 2nd.
Something to keep in mind.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Dakota
> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in news:jj54p51013c1cuqh9eeudnvp1a17pj11in@
> 4ax.com:
>
>>The 2nd is clearly no diffrent in intent than the 1st or 3rd or 5th
>
> Actually, the historical context of the Second Amendment is clearly about
> preserving the well-regulated militia because it's NECESSARY TO THE
> SECURITY OF A STATE. And that's still true. In natural disasters,
> riots, insurrections, invasions, it's the National Guard that comes to
> the rescue - not gunlooms sitting around in lawn chairs, then running
> away when the shooting begins, or when the floods hit town.
>
> The only right granted by the Second Amendment - and it is not granted by
> the gods - is that of the whole body of the people to use the well-
> regulated militia, today's National Guard, while prohibiting the federal
> government from disarming it or making it ineffective by sending the NG
> overseas for numerous tours of duty for fake wars.
The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it restricts the power of
government. There is a difference.
Fiftycal
>Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
>Framers of that article would have said so.
Well, loony loon continues to ignore reality. Big surprise. The
Supreme Court sez there is an individual right, so there is. In fact,
this is what they say;
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2�53.
(a) The Amendment�s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause�s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2�22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court�s
interpretation of the operative clause. The �militia� comprised all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm
the people in order to disable this citizens� militia, enabling a
politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals
to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens� militia would
be preserved. Pp. 22�28.
(c) The Court�s interpretation is confirmed by analogous
arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and
immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28�30.
(d) The Second Amendment �s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp.
30�32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court�s conclusion. Pp. 32�47.
(f) None of the Court�s precedents forecloses the Court�s
interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 ,
nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47�54.
And loony's "opinion" matters about as much as the opinion of my
garbage can. And is about as inteligent.
Shall not be infringed
> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in news:jj54p51013c1cuqh9eeudnvp1a17pj11in@
> 4ax.com:
>
> >The 2nd is clearly no diffrent in intent than the 1st or 3rd or 5th
>
> Actually, the historical context of the Second Amendment is clearly about
> preserving the well-regulated militia because it's NECESSARY TO THE
> SECURITY OF A STATE. And that's still true. In natural disasters,
> riots, insurrections, invasions, it's the National Guard that comes to
> the rescue - not gunlooms sitting around in lawn chairs, then running
> away when the shooting begins, or when the floods hit town.
>
> The only right granted by the Second Amendment - and it is not granted by
> the gods -
That's not what the document says. Go back and read it.
> is that of the whole body of the people to use the well-
> regulated militia,
Welp, Obama didn't send them to shovel my driveway, did he?
> today's National Guard, while prohibiting the federal
> government from disarming it or making it ineffective by sending the NG
> overseas for numerous tours of duty for fake wars.
Agree with that. Our standing military should be bigger.
> >.... and therefore covers everybody, indivudally and collectively.
>
> Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
> Framers of that article would have said so.
All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
> Just show us where George Washington, himself a longtime militia
> commander, ever said anything about an individual right to have guns
> unconnected to militia service anywhere in the US Constitution.
> Or show us where Madison said anything in all his writings about an
> individual gun right of any kind in the Second Amendment or anywhere else
> in the Constitution.
The debate is in the Federalist Papers.
And why did you stop there? Ask about Jefferson.
> If you want an individual right to have guns under the US Constitution,
> then repeal the Second Amendment and pass a 28th Amendment that uses
> language commonly found in state bills of rights granted individual gun
> rights to state citizens.
The supreme court has ruled it an individual right.
Shall not be infringed
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:52:42 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> > However, 2nd amendment aside, there ARE other amendments.
> > The WHOLE bill-o-rights needs constant defence. The NRA
> > doesn't do that, it has a narrow focus, so almost all we
> > have is the ACLU. Don't throw the baby out with the
> > bathwater, so to speak. The 2nd is no damned good without
> > the others.
>
> And the others are no damned good without the 2nd.
>
> Something to keep in mind.
Yep, one day you'll have to go to a licensed free speech dealer,
submit your free speech on a form, the dealer will call it in to the
national instant check system at the FBI, and you'll either get to
speak freely or you will be denied. It's a crapshoot.
Gray Ghost
4ax.com:
> However, 2nd amendment aside, there ARE other amendments.
> The WHOLE bill-o-rights needs constant defence. The NRA
> doesn't do that, it has a narrow focus, so almost all we
> have is the ACLU. Don't throw the baby out with the
> bathwater, so to speak. The 2nd is no damned good without
> the others.
>
The NRA started out as a training and inmformational organization. It only
took up defense of the 2nd Amendment as a response to the attacks by the left
on the 2nd and gun owners.
The ACLU is little more than an arm of the CPUSA masquerading as a rights
organization.
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
Gunner Asch
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), nraclaptrap
><nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
>>Framers of that article would have said so.
>
>Well, loony loon continues to ignore reality. Big surprise. The
>Supreme Court sez there is an individual right, so there is.
This of course is not the first time they have stated that the 2nd
Amendment is an Individual Right.
In fact..they have done so 35 OTHER times.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
And Claptrap has no refution to ANY of them.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Gunner Asch
> (f) None of the Court�s precedents forecloses the Court�s
>interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 ,
>nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights
>interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not
>limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
>limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
>the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Which of course would mean that Miller allows private ownership of full
auto weapons, man portable antitank weapons and so forth.
When an Antigun wackjob trots out Miller...they are overwhelmingly
surprised when you mention this factoid.
nraclaptrap
news:1jb4adas62bz0.tqcz2stwt2ol$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), nraclaptrap wrote:
>
>> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in
>> news:jj54p51013c1cuqh9eeudnvp1a17pj11in@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>>The 2nd is clearly no diffrent in intent than the 1st or 3rd or 5th
>>
>> Actually, the historical context of the Second Amendment is clearly
>> about preserving the well-regulated militia because it's NECESSARY TO
>> THE SECURITY OF A STATE. And that's still true. In natural
>> disasters, riots, insurrections, invasions, it's the National Guard
>> that comes to the rescue - not gunlooms sitting around in lawn
>> chairs, then running away when the shooting begins, or when the
>> floods hit town.
>>
>> The only right granted by the Second Amendment - and it is not
>> granted by the gods - is that of the whole body of the people to use
>> the well- regulated militia, today's National Guard, while
>> prohibiting the federal government from disarming it or making it
>> ineffective by sending the NG overseas for numerous tours of duty for
>> fake wars.
>
> The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights,
I can prove it does. Can you prove it doesn't, dumbass?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:gh08p5tk6pfrrgija...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
>>Framers of that article would have said so.
>
> Well, loony loon continues to ignore reality.
The reality is that the rightwing of the US Supreme Court has misbehaved
and should all be impeached and removed from the bench.
And they are not the Framers of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If
you want to revise the Constitution, pass a fucking amendment. Otherwise,
fuck off.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:ssa8p59rd1kdp78dn...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:42 -0600, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), nraclaptrap
>><nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
>>>Framers of that article would have said so.
>>
>>Well, loony loon continues to ignore reality. Big surprise. The
>>Supreme Court sez there is an individual right, so there is.
>
>
> This of course is not the first time they have stated that the 2nd
> Amendment is an Individual Right.
>
> In fact..they have done so 35 OTHER times.
>
> http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
>
> And Claptrap has no refution to ANY of them.
Actually I've read Dr. Kopout's little screed and I don't think you
understand a single example of those cases, Gummer.
Prove me wrong. Show me you understand one of Kopout's fake "Second
Amendment cases". Then I'll show you what a complete idiot you are.
Bring it on.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:6996b6a2-5847-4bcf...@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>> Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
>> Framers of that article would have said so.
>
> All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
So the Tenth Amendment is about individual rights? The Tenth Amendment is
part of the Bill of Rights and it reserves powers to the states and its
political subdivisions, not to individuals.
Prove otherwise by citing learned commentators on the Constitution, if you
can.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Fiftycal
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment the
>>>Framers of that article would have said so.
>>
>> Well, loony loon continues to ignore reality.
>
>The reality is that the rightwing of the US Supreme Court has misbehaved
>and should all be impeached and removed from the bench.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
According to you, "constitutional scholar"
>
>And they are not the Framers of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If
>you want to revise the Constitution, pass a fucking amendment. Otherwise,
>fuck off.
Gee loony loon. There WAS AN AMENDMENT PASSED! It's the Second
Amendment. See my earlier post for the SCOTUS interpretation of what
it MEANS!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
nraclaptrap
news:6996b6a2-5847-4bcf...@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>> Or show us where Madison said anything in all his writings about an
>> individual gun right of any kind in the Second Amendment or anywhere
>> else in the Constitution.
>
> The debate is in the Federalist Papers.
Show me where Madison says there should be an individual gun right
unconnected to the militia of Art I Sect 8 Cl 16 in the Constitution.
Because if the individual gun right isn't there, it wouldn't be in the
Second Amendment either.
Just show me where Madison says anything about individual gun rights.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:6996b6a2-5847-4bcf...@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>> If you want an individual right to have guns under the US
Constitution,
>> then repeal the Second Amendment and pass a 28th Amendment that uses
>> language commonly found in state bills of rights granted individual
gun
>> rights to state citizens.
>
> The supreme court has ruled it an individual right.
The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us. They can't explain how an
individual right to have guns for self-defense having no connection to
the well-regulated militia, can co-exist with the real Second Amendment,
the one that protects the right of the whole body of the people of a
state to not have their militia disarmed or made ineffective by the
federal government, which includes Congress, the President and the US
Supreme Court.
So if you support the federal government disarming and making ineffective
the well-regulated militia, you are infringing the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, because the well-regulated militia is necessary to
the security of each and every state of the union. Says so right in the
Second Amendment.
And franky Gummer, you aren't necessary to anybody's security except your
own.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Shall not be infringed
Speech, assembly, firearms, secure in your home are not individual
rights?
How about the right to remain silent?
nraclaptrap
> And the others are no damned good without the 2nd.
And yet you'd put your individual gun right ahead of the real purpose of
the Second Amendment without even thinking about it, eh Gummer?
The well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of each and every
state of the union.
You aren't.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
> On Mar 7, 6:54�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:6996
> b6a2-5847-4bcf-b...@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment
>> >> the Framers of that article would have said so.
>>
>> > All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
>>
>> So the Tenth Amendment is about individual rights? �The Tenth
>> Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and it reserves powers to the
>> states and its political subdivisions, not to individuals.
>>
>> Prove otherwise by citing learned commentators on the Constitution,
>> if you can.
>
> Speech, ass
embly, firearm
s, secure in your
home are not individualrights
Explain how the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights,
protects individual rights when it reserves powers to the states and
their political subdivisions.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
<ROTFLMAO> so we're supposed to take you word for it? <ROTFLMAO>
Fat chance
nraclaptrap
news:22i8p5l0uam47p267...@4ax.com:
>> The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
>
><ROTFLMAO> so we're supposed to take you word for it?
No, do your own homework. Search for any Framer of the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights saying they intended to frame an individual right to
have guns for self-defense ubconected to service in the well-regulated
militia. There's tons of all kinds of documents you can search. Start
with Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, where the
US Constitution was framed. Look also in the Federalist Papers and the
Anti-Federalist papers; in Eliot's Debates (Vol 5 is Madison's Notes on
the Fed Convention plus a few other docs); and search the First Congress
from May to November of 1789 which framed the Bill of Rights.
If any Framers ever intended to grant an individual right to have guns,
you'll find it.
But you'll never look will you, Mr. Crayon?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Alim Nassor
The people are not "political subdivisions".
Alim Nassor
> Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:799285a4-7c2c-4a42...@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 6:54 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:6996
>
> >> >> Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment
> >> >> the Framers of that article would have said so.
>
> >> > All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
>
> >> So the Tenth Amendment is about individual rights? The Tenth
> >> Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and it reserves powers to the
> >> states and its political subdivisions, not to individuals.
>
> >> Prove otherwise by citing learned commentators on the Constitution,
> >> if you can.
>
> > Speech, ass
>
> embly, firearm
> s, secure in your
> home are not individualrights
>
> Explain how the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights,
> protects individual rights when it reserves powers to the states and
> their political subdivisions.
>
> --
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Show me where "political subdivisions" are mentioned in the 10th
Amendment.
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>news:22i8p5l0uam47p267...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>> The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
>>
>><ROTFLMAO> so we're supposed to take you word for it?
>
>No, do your own homework. Search for any Framer of the Constitution or
>the Bill of Rights saying they intended to frame an individual right to
All I have to do is read the 2nd Amendmrnt, Dummy....
>have guns for self-defense ubconected to service in the well-regulated
>militia. There's tons of all kinds of documents you can search. Start
>with Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, where the
>US Constitution was framed. Look also in the Federalist Papers and the
>Anti-Federalist papers; in Eliot's Debates (Vol 5 is Madison's Notes on
>the Fed Convention plus a few other docs); and search the First Congress
>from May to November of 1789 which framed the Bill of Rights.
>
>If any Framers ever intended to grant an individual right to have guns,
>you'll find it.
The 2nd Amendment has already been found....
>But you'll never look will you, Mr. Crayon?
<LOL>
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at
243-244)
Fiftycal
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The supreme court has ruled it an individual right.
>
>The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us. They can't explain how an
>individual right to have guns for self-defense having no connection to
>the well-regulated militia, can co-exist with the real Second Amendment,
>the one that protects the right of the whole body of the people of a
>state to not have their militia disarmed or made ineffective by the
>federal government, which includes Congress, the President and the US
>Supreme Court.
Ya, right loon. Try getting someone to understand Heller for you.
I couldn't find an interpretation into moron for loon of Heller. But
here's one from McDonald V Chicago that even a simple mind as
sockpuppet loon can fathom.
GURA: Scalia! An argument for incorporating under privileges and
immunities, YOU CAN HAS!
SCALIA: WTF are you talking about? We can incorporate it under due
process. I hate due process and I even think that.
GURA: Uhhh
SCALIA: Are you trying to get a job at a law school?
GURA: Oh shit
SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE USE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THESE
FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU
GURA: But you hate due process
SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW
GURA: Uhhh
GINSBURG: I�m a bitch!
SCALIA: LULZ
STEVENS: I�m a bitch!
CLEMENT: This should obviously be incorporated under due process.
ALITO: Werd
BREYER: *motorboats Sotomayor*
FELDMAN: Here�s my first argument.
SCALIA: That argument sucks.
FELDMAN: Ordered liberty?
SCALIA: We haven�t used that since 1937.
FELDMAN: Have too.
SCALIA: When?
FELDMAN: Uh, here�s my second argument.
SCALIA: You just argued against your first argument.
FELDMAN: Did not.
SCALIA: Did so.
FELDMAN: DID NOT!
SCALIA: �
FELDMAN: *cries*
SCALIA: �
ROBERTS: You just argued the losing Heller argument.
FELDMAN: *pees pants*
BREYER: Let�s make a chart.
ROBERTS: Madison made a chart!
BREYER: STFU
THOMAS: *reads the Bible*
SCALIA: The 2A puts the fun in fundamental.
FELDMAN: Let me tell you what Heller says.
SCALIA: I wrote Heller, fucknuts.
KENNEDY: So if we�re going to just incorporate the militia purpose of
Heller, what case do we use for precedent?
FELDMAN: No fucking idea.
SCALIA: Why are you talking about the right to self-defense? That�s
not in the Constitution.
FELDMAN: See above. Besides, nobody would really restrict the right to
keep and bear arms so that it affected self-defense.
SCALIA: Have you even read Heller?
FELDMAN: I don�t think so.
KENNEDY: Gura, let�s use your last three minutes to talk about
everything but the 2A.
ROBERTS: I�m going to give you the chance to take back that privileges
and immunities thing.
GURA: No, we think it�s a good idea!
ROBERTS: *sigh*
Gunner Asch
wrote:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of
exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the
body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games
played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the
body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings
of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have
occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The
Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh,
editors.
We established however some, although not all its
[self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of
our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they
may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think
themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and
legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary
cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by
representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and
duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial
Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" adopted by the
Virginia legislature? Click here to learn why.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of
Pennsylvania, 1759.
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting
tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human
character.
---Alexander Hamilton
Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the
Constitution
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where)
the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at
individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial
orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of
the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws,
and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the
United States 475 (1787-1788)
John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as
individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias
must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise
is to invite anarchy.
The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook,
Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing
Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published
as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A
military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but
such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will
possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination,
to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and
oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading
Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have
no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal
or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in
the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20,
1788.
During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned
that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the
saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet
fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who
queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who
know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially
when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all
promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind
that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice
upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for
carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb.
20, 1788.
The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26,
1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that
abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a
convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression
rests upon the right to possess arms:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it
but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Henry sneered,
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants,
it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you
could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution
in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
More quotes from the Virginia convention:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great
Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and
most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it
openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are
the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few
public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future
day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the
future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and
poor...
---George Mason
Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result
in religious persecution or other oppression because:
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are
left in full possession of them.
The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the
following:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a
well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that
standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and
therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection
of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should
be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be
Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico
Press, 1984.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes
some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789,
MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the
rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not
enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being
established as unalienable.
Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of
his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon
his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like
private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of
arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda
Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Saint George Tucker (1752-1828) served as a colonel in the
Virginia militia, was wounded in the Revolutionary War, was a law
professor at William and Mary, and later was a justice on the Virginia
Supreme Court from 1804 to 1811. He was also a friend of Thomas
Jefferson. In 1803 he published a five-volume edition of Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England.
To Blackstone's listing of the "fifth and last auxiliary right
of the subject ... that of having arms ... suitable to their condition
and degree, and such as are allowed by law," Tucker in a footnote added:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
He cited the second amendment, noting that it is "without any
qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the
British government." He added: "Whoever examines the forest, and game
laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of
keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." In
discussing the second amendment, Tucker wrote:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty
.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most
governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within
the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and
the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or
pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is
on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed,
generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never
failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any
measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.
True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this
policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and
the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted
to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the
destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other
person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred
can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
Tucker thus merged self-defense, prevention of standing armies,
and protection from oppression all into a single concept--the
generalized right of keeping and bearing arms as protected by the second
amendment.
More St. George Tucker from the appendix of Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803),
"Here, let us again pause, and reflect, how admirably this
division, and distribution of legislative power is adapted to preserve
the liberty, and to promote the happiness of the people of the United
States... Fifthly, and lastly; by the separation of the judiciary from
the legislative department; and the independence of the former, of the
control, or influence of the latter, in any case where any individual
may be aggrieved or oppressed, under colour of an unconstitutional act
of the legislature, or executive. In England, on the contrary, the
greatest political object may be attained, by laws, apparently of little
importance, or amounting only to a slight domestic regulation: the
game-laws, as was before observed, have been converted into the means of
disarming the body of the people:..."
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to
regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any
state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the
rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of
arms to the people;..."
"If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the
free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of
a man's own conscience or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and
bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the
judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not;
and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be
annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act."
William Rawle
In 1791 William Rawle was appointed as a United States Attorney for
Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more
than eight years. He had also been George Washington's candidate for the
nation's first attorney general, but Rawle declined the appointment.
Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America"
(1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and
other institutions. He describes the scope of the Second Amendment's
right to keep and bear arms. (Rawle's comments quoted from Halbrook,
Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional
Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.)
"the powers not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people[quoting the 10th Amendment]. What we are about to
consider are certainly not delegated to congress, nor are they noticed
in the prohibitions to states; they are therefore reserved either to the
states or to the people. Their high nature, their necessity to the
general security and happiness will be distinctly perceived."
"In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated
militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will
dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are
confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the
commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia
form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to
suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of
government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A
disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the
enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to
adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least
interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In
this all the Union has a strong and visible interest."
"The corollary, from the first position, is that the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could
by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to
disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under
some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind
pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment
may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
"In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to
be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to
circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its
freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the
revolution of 1688; and is cautiously described to be that of bearing
arms for their defence,'suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by
law.' An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has
long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being
permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other
instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be
seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot
always trace expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however,
on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and
resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than
avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws."
Rawle stresses the importance of the militia as a safeguard against
a standing army, but he is also clear in pointing out that the right of
individuals to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, period,
regardless of usage, as it was arbitrarily restricted by hunting laws in
England.
Over time, it is the fusion of the militia clause and the broad
scope of the right to keep and bear arms that has caused many people to
misunderstand the Second Amendment. Many of the Founders and
commentators were concerned about the militia, but this was never meant
to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to military purposes only.
Remember the prohibition against infringement was meant to be "general"
Joseph Story
Justice Story was appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate
Justice by James Madison in 1811. In 1833 he wrote, "Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States" His comments on the Second Amendment
follow.
"The next amendment is: '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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any
persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the
natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions,
domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It
is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the
enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means,
which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the
government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the
citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral
check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will
generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this
truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated
militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the
American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia
discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be
rid." _______________________________
(1) 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p.
125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219, 220.
Thomas Cooley
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley was probably the
leading constitutional commentator of the late 1800s. In 1898 he wrote
Principles of Constitutional Law. He comments below on 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 enrollment 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."
"Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to
preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing
army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of
the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the
general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions
with arms is preservative of them."
"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution
are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community
against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited
merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."
Note, Thomas Cooley writes concealed carry of certain weapons may be
prohibited. Yet pistols have always been militia type weapons. Does this
mean it's okay by Cooley to carry concealed a militia type pistol, but
not a "Saturday Night Special?"
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>
>>If any Framers ever intended to grant an individual right to have guns,
>>you'll find it.
>
>The 2nd Amendment has already been found....
>
>>But you'll never look will you, Mr. Crayon?
>
><LOL>
>
>"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
>citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
>people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at
>243-244)
The Second Amendment states:
"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."
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us
carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,
recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying
what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson,
letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p.
322)
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of
the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New
York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized
by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all
is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has
always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form
the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United
States, October 14, 1789.)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas
Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,
334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard
Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever
Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they
always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon
their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor
debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August
17, 1789}])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way
to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James
Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of
the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying
Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the
Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who
know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate
Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an
oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates
in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little
if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand
ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of
standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the
military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are
afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the
Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe
in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal
Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia
Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania
Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by
any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to
disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under
some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind
pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment
may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of
the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people
always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to
use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of
Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of
Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the
Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is
able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the
ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the
Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of
Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at
386)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left
in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at
646)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where
is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at
184-8)
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams,
Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas
Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson,
On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably
ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence
... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events,
occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and
happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they
deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of
exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the
body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games
played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the
body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the
constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T.
Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on
the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not
lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world
deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas
Paine at 56 [1894])
"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to
keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia
Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)
"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of
the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they
please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference
between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a
standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed
people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An
Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free
Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the
English Monarchy [London, 1697])
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The
possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He,
who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by
him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is
his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to
defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and
at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry
into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])
"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John
Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty,
Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])
"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms,
not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight,
Travels in New England)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,
Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the
power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least
difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in
the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength
and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and
almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted
themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it
has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into
quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on
Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of
George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]
"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe,
been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a
long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the
government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper
attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and
religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their
amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country."
(Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms],
they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to
posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by
themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national
force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these
governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be
affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny
in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which
surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first
instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet,
though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well
regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that
among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system
of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its
burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep
the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.
There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to
disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the
protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
(Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States;
With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies
and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police
and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be
among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road
[New York, 1979])
"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among
other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison
between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to
expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an
unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed.
In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt
on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in
"The Prince")
"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of
fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the
second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must
needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The
Prince")
"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize
that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate
executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A
Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If
Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some
innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA
Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is
an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and
bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men
with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of
constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am.
Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting
the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as
are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be
so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part
of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire
and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if
any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may
be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally
forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2
Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
" 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed,
curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for
the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a
well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free
State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to
the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs.
State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons
to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact
any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People
vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one
to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical
constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224
(1921)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself
or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State
government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the
citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A
law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above
the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24
Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
The Lone Weasel
Then are you saying the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to
individuals? Think hard, lil gunloon.
You're aware that the primary political definition of "the people" is
"a state"?
Check it out.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
The Lone Weasel
> On Mar 8, 8:44 am, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:799285a4-7c2c-4a42...@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 6:54 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >> Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >> innews:6996
> > > b6a2-5847-4bcf-b338-dab3886af...@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> >> Well, if there were an individual right in the Second Amendment
> > >> >> the Framers of that article would have said so.
>
> > >> > All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
>
> > >> So the Tenth Amendment is about individual rights? The Tenth
> > >> Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and it reserves powers to the
> > >> states and its political subdivisions, not to individuals.
>
> > >> Prove otherwise by citing learned commentators on the Constitution,
> > >> if you can.
>
> > > Speech, ass
>
> > embly, firearm
> > s, secure in your
> > home are not individualrights
>
> > Explain how the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights,
> > protects individual rights when it reserves powers to the states and
> > their political subdivisions.
>
> Amendment.
"The people". Recall that "the people" in the context of individuals
and possibly collectively retain unenumerated rights. Do individuals
also have reserved powers? And if so, identify a few individual
powers that existed in the states and which were reserved to
individuals after ratification of the Constitution.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
The Lone Weasel
> >>> The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
>
> >><ROTFLMAO> so we're supposed to take you word for it?
>
> >No, do your own homework. Search for any Framer of the Constitution or
> >the Bill of Rights saying they intended to frame an individual right to
>
> All I have to do is read the 2nd Amendmrnt, Dummy....
You can't accept the context of the Second Amendment, so you can't
know what it means.
That's typical for you, Mr. Crayon.
Next please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
pyotr filipivich
on or about Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:44:39 -0800 did write, type or
otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:42 -0600, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>
>> (f) None of the Court�s precedents forecloses the Court�s
>>interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 ,
>>nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights
>>interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not
>>limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
>>limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
>>the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
>
>
>Which of course would mean that Miller allows private ownership of full
>auto weapons, man portable antitank weapons and so forth.
And would seem to cover military weapons over civilian "sporting
use" firearms. Which means My sear Roebuck Model 97 is covered
(because it was issued to the Marines in WWI) but that fancy set of
skeet guns aren't covered.
>When an Antigun wackjob trots out Miller...they are overwhelmingly
>surprised when you mention this factoid.
Fact! "Factoid" - something which resembles a fact. Much as
"Humanoid" is something which resembles a human being. Or as a
"Chthuluoid Entity" shares attributes with Chthulu. (See "Through the
Looking Glass" by John Ringo for more on the subject.)
tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
The Lone Weasel
> The Second Amendment states:
>
> "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."
>
> "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us
> carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,
> recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying
> what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
> conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson,
> letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p.
> 322)
Has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
> "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of
> the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some
> rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
> majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New
> York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
Not true. The Congress passed 12 articles of amendment to be sent to
the states. The first two - one about apportionment and never
ratified, the other limiting congressional pay raises did pass in
1992. Gallatin should have known that these two articles and the last
one concerning reserved powers had nothing to do with anybody's
rights.
You cite Gallatin saying ""The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a
declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as
individuals", and the Second Amendment is one that is wholly a right
of the people at large.
Guess those pesky collective rights just won't go away, eh Snout?
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized
> by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all
> is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has
> always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form
> the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United
> States, October 14, 1789.)
Yeah, the regular military and/or the well-regulated militia. Not
individual gunloons.
> "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas
> Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,
> 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own
lands]."
Gee, that sounds like a matter of the internal police, ie a gun
control law.
Never made it into the Virginia Bill of Rights or the Virginia
Constitution of 1776. Here's a use of "arms" that did make it:
"SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a
free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided,
as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Militia, not an individual gun right to be exercised just on your own
land.
> "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
> infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
> trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
> country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
Here's Madison's draft complete and accurately quoted:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
best security of a free country: but no person religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military
service in person."
Annals of Congress, Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress.
House of Representatives, June 8, 1789. p 451.
Get your quotes straight before posting them, Snout...
POINTS PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Gunner Asch
Snicker..I noticed that you didnt mention the second series of quotes I
provided as a followup. The ones from the Revolution and
Afterwards....and the 35 other Supreme Court decisions that declared the
2nd Amendment was an individual right.
Proven you are an idiot!!!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh!!!
Gunner, who once again bitch slaps the stupid putz.
Steve
Steve
<lee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 7, 8:13�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >>> The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
>>
>> >><ROTFLMAO> �so we're supposed to take you word for it?
>>
>> >No, do your own homework. �Search for any Framer of the Constitution or
>> >the Bill of Rights saying they intended to frame an individual right to
>>
>> All I have to do is read the 2nd Amendmrnt, Dummy....
>
>You can't accept the context of the Second Amendment, so you can't
>know what it means.
>
I contextualize the 2nd Amendment by noting that it was written by an
individual who was quoted as saying that it was a great thing that
individuals in America had a RKBA.
Steve
Sorry, that quote does not even mention the RKBA.
>> � � "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
>> infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
>> trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
>> country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
>
>Here's Madison's draft complete and accurately quoted:
>
>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
>best security of a free country: but no person religiously
>scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military
>service in person."
I see that even in that draft, Madison did not limit the RKBA to the
militia.
Fact is that nowhere in any of the quotes from the FF was there any
mention of limiting the RKBA to Militia, and indeed, the FF seemed to
all be in favor of individuals owning guns since most of them did own
them.
>Annals of Congress, Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress.
>House of Representatives, June 8, 1789. p 451.
>
>Get your quotes straight before posting them, Snout...
>
>POINTS PROVEN!
<LOL> In your tiny mind, perhaps...
nraclaptrap
I noticed every one of your quotes were fake or intentionally (or
cluelessly) misconstrued.
If you don't know the difference, that's fine with me. But you don't
deserve any more of my time.
Have a nice spring & summer, Gummer.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:gnp9p59hq3b9bmsdl...@4ax.com:
Too bad. Jefferson's draft - which Gummer dishonestly edited before
posting - never made it into the Virginia Constitution. It would have
granted a freeman an individual right to use guns on his own land.
Nowhere else, though...
JEFFERSON'S INDIVIDUAL GUN RIGHT UNCONNECTED TO MILITIA SERVICE WAS
REJECTED.
>>> � � "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
>>> infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
>>> people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a
>>> free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8,
>>> 1789])
>>
>>Here's Madison's draft complete and accurately quoted:
>>
>>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
>>best security of a free country: but no person religiously
>>scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military
>>service in person."
>
>I see that even in that draft, Madison did not limit the RKBA to the
>militia.
No you don't see, Mr. Crayon. The right granted in the last clause is a
right of conscientious objectors, like Quakers, NOT to keep and bear
arms...
The rest of Madison's draft of the Second Amendment was all about, "a
well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country."
And that use of "being" is replicated in the Second Amendment, which
proves beyond any doubt that the the first part of the Second Amendment
sets the context of the second part.
It's about the right of the people to have a militia which is necessary
to their security as a state, and to prohibit any federal power from
disarming it or making it ineffective.
"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."
POINT PROVEN!
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:qjq9p59sdtd4ensii...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:43:32 -0800 (PST), The Lone Weasel
> <lee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 7, 8:13�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >>> The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
>>>
>>> >><ROTFLMAO> �so we're supposed to take you word for it?
>>>
>>> >No, do your own homework. �Search for any Framer of the
>>> >Constitution or the Bill of Rights saying they intended to frame an
>>> >individual right to
>>>
>>> All I have to do is read the 2nd Amendmrnt, Dummy....
>>
>>You can't accept the context of the Second Amendment, so you can't
>>know what it means.
>
>I contextualize the 2nd Amendment by noting that it was written by an
>individual who was quoted as saying that it was a great thing that
>individuals in America had a RKBA.
The Second Amendment wasn't written, ie framed by an individual. It was
framed by Congress.
Next please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
the primary clause of Second Amendment is word for word, exactly, as
Madison proposed.... and in Madison's draft, he separated that
clause from the militia clause with a semi colon which clearly shows
that in his <LOL> "context" he did not intend the militia clause to
modify the RKBA clause. ...and, of course, under the rules of common
English grammar, it does not modify the RKBA even in the final
version.
It is totally ridiculous to suggest that these gentlemen, far better
educated then yourself, would not have clearly stated that the RKBA
was limited to militia men had they so intended.
Steve
Blah, blah, blah...
>JEFFERSON'S INDIVIDUAL GUN RIGHT UNCONNECTED TO MILITIA SERVICE WAS
>REJECTED.
Yet it, and the other quotes, demonstrate the "context" of the 2nd
Amendment that you were blustering about... These guys were obviously
in favor if individuals owning guns
>>>> � � "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
>>>> infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
>>>> people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a
>>>> free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8,
>>>> 1789])
>>>
>>>Here's Madison's draft complete and accurately quoted:
>>>
>>>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
>>>best security of a free country: but no person religiously
>>>scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military
>>>service in person."
>>
>>I see that even in that draft, Madison did not limit the RKBA to the
>>militia.
>
>No you don't see, Mr. Crayon. The right granted in the last clause is a
>right of conscientious objectors, like Quakers, NOT to keep and bear
>arms...
<LOL> And the right in the first clause is the right of the people
to Keep and bear arms, Dummy...
>The rest of Madison's draft of the Second Amendment was all about, "a
>well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
>country."
...and which does absolutely nothing to modify the people's to keep
and bear arms..
>And that use of "being" is replicated in the Second Amendment, which
>proves beyond any doubt that the the first part of the Second Amendment
>sets the context of the second part.
<LOL> Only in your feeble mind...
>It's about the right of the people to have a militia which is necessary
>to their security as a state, and to prohibit any federal power from
>disarming it or making it ineffective.
...and if that was what the 2nd Amendment was about, it would surely
have said as much. Of course, it does not say 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."
>
>POINT PROVEN!
Blah, blah, blah...
nraclaptrap
news:agrap5ld9sbi1csk0...@4ax.com:
Lone Weasel 1
Crayon 0
>>JEFFERSON'S INDIVIDUAL GUN RIGHT UNCONNECTED TO MILITIA SERVICE WAS
>>REJECTED.
>
>Yet it, and the other quotes, demonstrate the "context" of the 2nd
>Amendment
Militia is the context of the Second Amendment, that's why it comes first
in the sentence, dunce.
that you were blustering about... These guys were obviously
> in favor if individuals owning guns
>
>>>>> � � "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
>>>>> infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the
>>>>> people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a
>>>>> free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8,
>>>>> 1789])
>>>>
>>>>Here's Madison's draft complete and accurately quoted:
>>>>
>>>>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>>infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
>>>>best security of a free country: but no person religiously
>>>>scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military
>>>>service in person."
>>>
>>>I see that even in that draft, Madison did not limit the RKBA to the
>>>militia.
>>
>>No you don't see, Mr. Crayon. The right granted in the last clause is
>>a right of conscientious objectors, like Quakers, NOT to keep and bear
>>arms...
>
> <LOL> And the right in the first clause is the right of the people
> to Keep and bear arms, Dummy...
Second clause is "a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best
security of a free country". Once again, "being" means "because" which
you'd know if you'd ever read any 18th C. prose.
>>The rest of Madison's draft of the Second Amendment was all about, "a
>>well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a
>>free country."
>
> ...and which does absolutely nothing to modify the people's to keep
> and bear arms..
In a militia which is necessary to the security if their state, that's
correct.
>>And that use of "being" is replicated in the Second Amendment, which
>>proves beyond any doubt that the the first part of the Second Amendment
>>sets the context of the second part.
>
> <LOL> Only in your feeble mind...
I can read 18th Century prose. You can't.
I win you lose.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:epsap5dt9tv2o6p7v...@4ax.com:
>>>>> >>> The rightwing of the Supreme Court lied to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> >><ROTFLMAO> �so we're supposed to take you word for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> >No, do your own homework. �Search for any Framer of the
>>>>> >Constitution or the Bill of Rights saying they intended to frame
an
>>>>> >individual right to
>>>>>
>>>>> All I have to do is read the 2nd Amendmrnt, Dummy....
>>>>
>>>>You can't accept the context of the Second Amendment, so you can't
>>>>know what it means.
>>>
>>>I contextualize the 2nd Amendment by noting that it was written by an
>>>individual who was quoted as saying that it was a great thing that
>>>individuals in America had a RKBA.
>>
>>The Second Amendment wasn't written, ie framed by an individual. It
>>was framed by Congress.
>
> the primary clause of Second Amendment is word for word, exactly, as
> Madison proposed....
I posted the correct text of Madison's draft. The text Gummer posted was
wrong. I gave you the correct cite, and you were afraid to go find it.
Your mind is made of crayon.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Second clause does not modify the first..
>and well regulated militia being the best
>security of a free country".
>
>Once again, "being" means "because" which
>you'd know if you'd ever read any 18th C. prose.
err, actually, in that phrase "being" simply means "is."
>>>The rest of Madison's draft of the Second Amendment was all about, "a
>>>well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a
>>>free country."
>>
>> ...and which does absolutely nothing to modify the people's to keep
>> and bear arms..
>
>In a militia which is necessary to the security if their state, that's
>correct.
Repeating your ignorance only confirms that you are more ignorant than
assumed when you said it the first time.
>>>And that use of "being" is replicated in the Second Amendment, which
>>>proves beyond any doubt that the the first part of the Second Amendment
>>>sets the context of the second part.
>
>> <LOL> Only in your feeble mind...
>
>I can read 18th Century prose. You can't.
Obviously you failed grammar... (and probably much more) The fact
that one reason was stated for the RKBA does not mean that it is the
only reason nor that absent that reason the Right goes away.
>I win you lose.
So stating does not make it true... It's not. The simple fact is
that I have several guns and they are legal in spite of all your noise
to the contrary.
>Next.
Steve
As I said....the primary clause of Second Amendment is word for word,
exactly, as Madison proposed....
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Not to mention that EVERYONE belongs to the Militia, with a few public
officals being exempt.
Gunner
"I believe that being despised by the despicable
is as good as being admired by the admirable."
From long experience myself, I can only say, "You betcha."
nraclaptrap
news:u81bp5dr4ue1ngedr...@4ax.com:
According to professional linguists you should be reading this sentence
like this:
"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
That's not so easy to intentionally misconstrue as the more archaic
sentence structure, eh Crayonite? And really if you're reading the
Second Amendment another way, you're just wrong.
>>and well regulated militia being the best
>>security of a free country".
>>
>>Once again, "being" means "because" which
>>you'd know if you'd ever read any 18th C. prose.
>
> err, actually, in that phrase "being" simply means "is."
It means because the militia is necessary to the security of a state, for
that reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
How is that any different from what the Framers of the Second Amendment
say, slick?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:lu2bp51ve58j5m6gc...@4ax.com:
What Gummer cited and you believed was Madison's draft was not what we find
in Annals of Congress.
And what the sentence below says is, "The right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well armed, and well regulated
militia is the best security of a free country: but no person religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service
in person."
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the
best security of a free country: but no person religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military
service in person."
Annals of Congress, Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress.
House of Representatives, June 8, 1789. p 451.
And the only thing concerning an individual right in Madison's draft is the
"person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms", and those arms are
MILITARY, just as they are in the first clause and the second clause, and
in both the first and second clauses the words "people" and "militia" are
collective nouns. Again, the singular noun "person" only appears in the
clause whose context is NOT BEARING ARMS.
Boy those NRA lawloons did a number on you, eh Mr. Crayonite?
Points proven.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Actually, it clearly gives the RKBA to individuals.. Live with that
fact because there's nothing you can do about it.
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<ROTFLMAO> I'm not disputing that you moron. What I'm saying.. that
flew over your low brow.... is that nether the wording of the Second
Amendment, nor the wording of Madison's original proposal, nor your
alternate wording above says, suggests, implies, nor insinuates that
the RKBA only applies to people in a militia..
Read this, dummy.
"I hope it rains *because* my lawn needs watering"
That sentence does not say that I only want it to rain on my lawn. It
does not say that it's the only reason I want it to rain. It does not
say that were I, in the future, to not have any lawn I would want it
never to rain....
Try this one you uneducated ignoramus:
A well educated electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a
free state, the right of the citizens to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed.
Is there anything in that sentence that says non-citizens should not
be allowed to have books?
>That's not so easy to intentionally misconstrue as the more archaic
>sentence structure, eh Crayonite? And really if you're reading the
>Second Amendment another way, you're just wrong.
<LOL> Reading comprehension is not your forte, eh?
>>>and well regulated militia being the best
>>>security of a free country".
>>>
>>>Once again, "being" means "because" which
>>>you'd know if you'd ever read any 18th C. prose.
>>
>> err, actually, in that phrase "being" simply means "is."
>
>It means because the militia is necessary to the security of a state, for
>that reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>infringed.
>
>How is that any different from what the Framers of the Second Amendment
>say, slick?
Too bad for you that the Framers did not specify that only militia
members had the RKBA. You'll have to live with that fact.
nraclaptrap
news:ot7cp5tr4rf41n30f...@4ax.com:
>>According to professional linguists you should be reading this
>>sentence like this:
>>
>>"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a
>>free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>infringed."
>
> <ROTFLMAO> I'm not disputing that
Thank you, Mr. Crayola.
> you moron. What I'm saying.. that
> flew over your low brow.... is that nether the wording of the Second
> Amendment, nor the wording of Madison's original proposal, nor your
> alternate wording above says, suggests, implies, nor insinuates that
> the RKBA only applies to people in a militia..
Tell it to the Framers of the Second Amendment. Your attempts to pervert
the meaning of the US Constitution are weak. All the facts are on my
side. Your argument is complete fantasy sanctioned only by rightwing
lobbyists and constitution-hating jurists.
So talk to The Mason, punk:
[begin text]
An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us
how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the
resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the
British Parliament was advised by an artful man,* who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the
best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should
not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually,
by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason
quoted sundry passages to this effect.]
This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide
against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural
strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same
time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to
abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe
proper discipline, they will be of no use.
I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be
excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I
stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to
meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should
neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an
express declaration that the state governments might arm and
discipline them.
George Mason. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3,
380] Saturday, June 14, 1788.
[Note *: * Sir William Keith.]
[end text]
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:5b9cp55pq77feaa4u...@4ax.com:
Then cite a real example of that actually happening to an individual who
is not enrolled in the militia, where the right gifted to him is only for
his self-defense.
> Live with that
> fact because there's nothing you can do about it.
On the contrary, Mr. Crayon. There's nothing YOU can do about it.
If you really believe the horseshit the NRA tells you, why don't you ask
them for some examples of individuals who were granted individual gun
rights based on the Second Amendment.
If the NRA's telling you the truth there should be lots of examples to
support your fantasies. Post a few from the 18th and early 19th
Centuries if you don't mind. That's when individual gun rights under the
Second Amendment would be in their heyday, eh Mr. Crayola?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>news:ot7cp5tr4rf41n30f...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>According to professional linguists you should be reading this
>>>sentence like this:
>>>
>>>"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a
>>>free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>>infringed."
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> I'm not disputing that
>
>Thank you, Mr. Crayola.
In never have disputed that.. In the context of my sentiments it is
insignificant. Because the 2nd offers a reason as to why they insist
on a RKBA does not mean there are no other reasons nor that absent
that reason the RKBA would not apply.
>> you moron. What I'm saying.. that
>> flew over your low brow.... is that nether the wording of the Second
>> Amendment, nor the wording of Madison's original proposal, nor your
>> alternate wording above says, suggests, implies, nor insinuates that
>> the RKBA only applies to people in a militia..
>
>Tell it to the Framers of the Second Amendment.
<LOL> Actually, they are the ones that told me... via the second
Amendment itself, you hapless moron.
> Your attempts to pervert
>the meaning of the US Constitution are weak.
That's from a loon that imagines the Second Amendment to limit the
RKBA to the Militia.... which is clearly not the case.
> All the facts are on my
>side.
Typical leftist loser... ....claiming victory while being carried out
of the ring on a stretcher...
>Your argument is complete fantasy sanctioned only by rightwing
>lobbyists and constitution-hating jurists.
<ROTFL> Blah, blah, blah.
<LOL> More rhetoric that utterly fails to show any agenda involving
or any sentiment towards limiting the RKBA to the militia...
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<LOL> Why should I contemplate doing anything about the Second
Amendment? I'm very happy with the second Amendment.
>If you really believe the horseshit the NRA tells you, why don't you ask
>them for some examples of individuals who were granted individual gun
>rights based on the Second Amendment.
Errrr, actually, I am such an individual...
>If the NRA's telling you the truth there should be lots of examples to
>support your fantasies. Post a few from the 18th and early 19th
>Centuries if you don't mind. That's when individual gun rights under the
>Second Amendment would be in their heyday, eh Mr. Crayola?
<shrug> my father, my grandfathers and my great grandfathers were
such individuals..
nraclaptrap
news:borcp5t62tvaa2i3i...@4ax.com:
>>>>According to professional linguists you should be reading this
>>>>sentence like this:
>>>>
>>>>"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a
>>>>free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
>>>>be infringed."
>>>
>>> <ROTFLMAO> I'm not disputing that
>>
>>Thank you, Mr. Crayola.
>
> In never have disputed that.. In the context of my sentiments it is
> insignificant. Because the 2nd offers a reason as to why they insist
> on a RKBA does not mean there are no other reasons nor that absent
> that reason the RKBA would not apply.
So you're saying the US Constitution actually contains infinite rights
rather than enumerated rights? And all you need is a wealthy lobbyist to
show you the hidden rights?
Yes or no?
>>> you moron. What I'm saying.. that flew over your low brow.... is
>>> that nether the wording of the Second Amendment, nor the wording of
>>> Madison's original proposal, nor your alternate wording above says,
>>> suggests, implies, nor insinuates that the RKBA only applies to
>>> people in a militia..
>>
>> Tell it to the Framers of the Second Amendment.
>
> <LOL> Actually, they are the ones that told me... via the second
> Amendment itself, you hapless moron.
You're like one of those believers in religious prophesies, where the
modern day prophet finds all kinds of crazy shit in the text of the Bible
(one he translated himself from the Original King James Version) that
says (to the prophet) that "the meek shall inherit the earth" means "beat
the homeless people, stomp them into the dirt".
You can't know what the Second Amendment means unless you know the
historical facts that created it. And those facts are not all that
complicated. A sizable portion of Americans were afraid of a standing
army, which reminded them of the British trying to confiscate their
militia weapons and equipment at the outset of the Revolutionary War.
When the militia clauses were framed at the Federal Convention, there
were questions about giving the President command powers over the
militia, and letting Congress arm the militia, the idea being that it
would be easy for a power-hungry Congress and/or President to simply
disarm the militia and invade a state to take over its government after
disbanding its militia, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state".
Soon after ratification of the Bill of Rights, states began to revise
their constitutions and militia statutes to coordinate with federal law;
and that's when they began adding an individual right to be armed for
their personal defense, seeing as how the militia probably wouldn't
always be available to run off gangs or outlaws, or hostile Indians, or
insurrections. That where our individual rights to have guns for self-
defense came from. Not from the US Constitution. From where we actually
lived.
We've had that local and state right to keep and bear arms, in the sense
of civilian small arms for self-defense, at least since states realized
that one was needed and the US Constitution didn't grant it; but possibly
before the US Constitution. It's an individual right to self-defense and
most early American constitutions say exactly that.
We don't need superfluous or redundant gun rights under federal law
mainly because of the Supremacy Clause, which could easily cancel our
long-standing and well protected state gun rights. It would be simple to
ditch concealed carry and wear guns openly if you need them at all, and
that would take care of 90% of objections to liberal gun rights.
But you can't lie about the Constitution and get away with it. The NRA
says otherwise, but they're wrong.
>> Your attempts to pervert
>>the meaning of the US Constitution are weak.
>
> That's from a loon that imagines the Second Amendment to limit the
> RKBA to the Militia.... which is clearly not the case.
It's not the militia's right dumbass, it's the right of the people to
have an effective and well-regulated militia.
If you really don't understand, I just hope you need the National Guard
someday to save your ass from a natural disater, fire, flood. And maybe
you'll thank them for not listening to Justice Scalia who implied that
the well-regulated militia is obsolete.
If you think the well-regulated militia isn't what the Framers of the
Constitution said it is, then ask your gunbuddies to pull you out of the
flooded ravine while you wait in top of your car. I'm sure they'll be
right there...
As soon as they decide which gun to bring.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Steve
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>news:borcp5t62tvaa2i3i...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>>>According to professional linguists you should be reading this
>>>>>sentence like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a
>>>>>free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
>>>>>be infringed."
>>>>
>>>> <ROTFLMAO> I'm not disputing that
>>>
>>>Thank you, Mr. Crayola.
>>
>> In never have disputed that.. In the context of my sentiments it is
>> insignificant. Because the 2nd offers a reason as to why they insist
>> on a RKBA does not mean there are no other reasons nor that absent
>> that reason the RKBA would not apply.
>
>So you're saying the US Constitution actually contains infinite rights
>rather than enumerated rights? And all you need is a wealthy lobbyist to
>show you the hidden rights?
If the FF intended the right to exist only for militia members they
would have said that. They did not say that..
>Yes or no?
The RKBA is not hidden at all...
>> that reason the RKBA would not apply.
>>>> you moron. What I'm saying.. that flew over your low brow.... is
>>>> that nether the wording of the Second Amendment, nor the wording of
>>>> Madison's original proposal, nor your alternate wording above says,
>>>> suggests, implies, nor insinuates that the RKBA only applies to
>>>> people in a militia..
>>>
>>> Tell it to the Framers of the Second Amendment.
>>
>> <LOL> Actually, they are the ones that told me... via the second
>> Amendment itself, you hapless moron.
>
>You're like one of those believers in religious prophesies, where the
>modern day prophet finds all kinds of crazy shit in the text of the Bible
>(one he translated himself from the Original King James Version) that
>says (to the prophet) that "the meek shall inherit the earth" means "beat
>the homeless people, stomp them into the dirt".
<LOL> Blah, blah, blah...
>You can't know what the Second Amendment means unless you know the
>historical facts that created it.
Don't be ridiculous, Dummy... The Second Amendment says what it
says... not what you want it to say.
Says you... a pathetic loser with questionable reading
comprehension skills... whose opinions are even less than
insignificant...
>>> Your attempts to pervert
>>>the meaning of the US Constitution are weak.
>>
>> That's from a loon that imagines the Second Amendment to limit the
>> RKBA to the Militia.... which is clearly not the case.
>
>It's not the militia's right dumbass, it's the right of the people to
>have an effective and well-regulated militia.
Reading comprehension seems to be a problem for you.. The Second
Amendment addresses the RKBA, not any right about having a militia.
>If you really don't understand, I just hope you need the National Guard
>someday to save your ass from a natural disater, fire, flood. And maybe
>you'll thank them for not listening to Justice Scalia who implied that
>the well-regulated militia is obsolete.
<LOL> Blah, blah, blah..
>If you think the well-regulated militia isn't what the Framers of the
>Constitution said it is,
The Second Amendment is about the RKBA. The Militia clause neither
adds nor subtracts from the meaning of the RKBA clause nor does it add
any other rights.
> then ask your gunbuddies to pull you out of the
>flooded ravine while you wait in top of your car. I'm sure they'll be
>right there...
<LOL> Blah, blah, blah...
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:4b8fc553...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:25:19 -0500, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
>>news:wpadnXTjULw8xBLW...@earthlink.com...
>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>> Maybe even the world.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we all thought the same thing about Bush. It is
>>> impossible
>>> to judge a president except in relation to those who came before and
>>> after. Assuming Obama is not America's final president, I know that
>>> judging from our national character that we will manage to elect someone
>>> even worse.
>>>
>>> Bush and Obama are kind of like the emperors in the final years of the
>>> Roman Empire, each one more insane and tyrannical than his predecessor.
>>> Eventually the American Empire will collapse, and we will be overrun by
>>> hordes of Chinese barbarians.
>>
>>There 'is' no relative moral equivalence between President George W. Bush
>>and President Barrack Hussein Obama.
>>
>>President Bush's loyalties are with America, Obama's loyalties are with
>>worldly 'social justice'.
>
> Liar. Bush's loyalties are with his wealthy friends. That's all he
> ever cared about.
>
>>
>>President Bush knows America is unique among all nations, Obama 'feels'
>>every nation is special and deserves a gold star for effort rather than
>>accomplishment.
>
> America is "unique"? Why?
>
>>
>>Read what Mitt Romney and Shimon Peres, Israel's former prime minister and
>>current president has to say about America:
>>http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-book-no-apology/2010/03/01/id/351304
>
> Mitt Romney is a self serving Mormon, and Peres is on the hook to the
> US to the tune of 2 billion dollars a year in never to be paid back
> finanical aid.
>>
>>Obama isn't Presidential, he's Neville Chamberlain
>
> Obama is a better president than you are capable of grasping.
>
LOL
The stupid presumption of the left that they are so much smarter than
everyone else and therefore such things are a "mystery" that ONLY THEY can
"grasp"...
CB
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:fuednZ0iIZS7vArW...@bright.net...
Obama is trying to end sport fishing and limit commercial fishing of coastal
waters.
The guy is axing to be impeached
>
>
Strabo
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in
>> news:92vuo59p7l5c6hs8q...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>> I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>>>
>>> If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level one. Try
>>> harder.
>> What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
>
> The ACLU steers pretty clear of 2nd-amendment stuff.
> This is wise.
>
The ACLU stays clear of all matters that might stir
the pot of unalienable rights.
Since the 1930s when law was codified as the USC and constitutional
courts were abolished, the ACLU and the federal government deal with
'civil rights' and policy.
>
>> That sounds contradictory to me, Mr. Bleak.
>
> I think you're confusing "liberals" with
> the ACLU. While the organization is made
> up almost entirely of lefties, the kinds
> of cases it persues do not represent the
> entire width and breadth of leftydom.
>
> Excuse me, "lefty-dum". :-)
>
> Frankly, if "free speech" or a "free press" or
> rights to speedy trials judged by ones peers
> or "religious choice" or even a ban on owning
> slaves are gonna be argued as universal rights
> then you can't single out the 2nd amendment and
> say it only applies to the Fed, maybe only in DC.
>
> That would be stupid.
>
> If that's true, then the 'red' states oughtta
> make it illegal to be a Democrat :-)
>
> In any event, both the ACLU and the NRA are more
> or less on the same mission - the preservation and
> strenghtening of civil/human rights. They are
> both "human rights organizations" ... but their
> area of focus is a bit different. We need even
> MORE such organizations ... whether their focus
> is 'general' or specific.
>
> SO MANY persons, entities and organizations want
> to cut huge chunks out of our civil liberties for
> fun or profit that we need all the defenders we
> can get. Will they disagree on some details ?
> Sure. So what ?
>
Strabo
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>>> I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level one.
>>>>> Try harder.
>>>> What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
>>> The ACLU steers pretty clear of 2nd-amendm
>> ent stuff.
>>> This is wise.
>>
>> "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
>> Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court�s decision in D.C. v.
>> Heller."
>>
>> Point proven!
>
> A "collective right" is like the right to free
> speech/religion/etc - for all, regardless.
>
> Seems a sound point of view to me.
>
Can the "collective" be recognized as a citizen?
Can the "collective" be called to jury duty?
Can the "collective" be charged with a crime?
Only an individual can exercise a right.
A "collective right" is a fiction. It means that the "collective"
is treated under law as a protected category. It means that no
individual right exists.
"Civil rights", "civil liberties" are NOT unalienable rights. They
are administrative grants of privilege.
Strabo
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:22:58 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in
>>>
>>>> I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>>>>
>>>> If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level one. Try
>>>> harder.
>>> What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
>> This is wise.
>>
>
> "What is the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment?
> The Second Amendment provides: "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." Given the reference to "a
> well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU
> has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a
> collective right rather than an individual right. For more
> information, please read our statement on the Second Amendment."
>
> From their statement on the Second Amendment:
>
> "The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the
> nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not,
> however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither
> the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil
> liberties issue. **<My opinion, bullshit>
>
> Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v.
> Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy
> was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it
> reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil
> liberties.
>
> Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the
> same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what
> firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations
> (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination
> will be made. **<Well that probably is true & the reason the Court
> has very carefully worded its decision on Heller>
>
> Now, my personal take on the subject is that once one begins
> considering Constitutional Rights (or the Governments restrictions on
> those rights) as to be "Collective" you've opened a bigger Pandora's
> box then the ACLU thinks the Heller decision did.
>
> It sets the stage for more & more Rights to be considered as
> "Collective" in nature and the next thing you know we are living on a
> Collective eating our government approved diets, praying in our
> government approved churches, reading our government approved Press,
> and only speaking the collective party line.
>
The ACLU originally created a "collective right" as an argument
for WWI pacifists. From the beginning its members avoided the
Constitution and individual rights and instead concocted categories of
special characters. This dualistic system of law is used to circumvent
the Constitution through "collective rights."
Origins of the ACLU
American Union Against Militarism (AUAM) 1916
|
Fellowship of Reconciliation 1917
Civil Liberties Bureau (CLB) < Fellowship of Reconciliation
|
National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB)
|
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 1920
Founder - Norman Thomas
Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a
leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential
candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
>
> While I realize that self-reliance, self-responsibility,
> self-independence, and many other aspects of the self has been slowly
> eroded by the most addictive substance on earth, governmental programs
> & entailments I personally refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and continue
> to try to make my own way in the world with the least government
> interference & intervention that I can manage. In a word I desire to
> continue to be free to make my own choices & live with the
> consequences of them.
>
It's wise to be suspicious of collectives. It won't surprise you that a
"collective" cannot be judged to be self-reliant, self-responsibile or
self-independent, because it's not a "self."
Socialist systems use collectives instead of recognizing individuals.
Hence, the individual has no rights because he doesn't legally exist.
The "collective" is a creature of an ideology.
nraclaptrap
news:rrXln.17557$mn6....@newsfe07.iad:
> Mr.B1ack wrote:
>> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in
>>> news:ams2p59btt2qrqu566atk3c7slvhj5sali@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level
>>>>>> one. Try harder.
>>>>> What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
>>>> The ACLU steers pretty clear of 2nd-amendm
>>> ent stuff.
>>>> This is wise.
>>> YOU LIE!
>>>
>>> "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
>>> Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v.
>>> Heller."
>>>
>>> Point proven!
>>
>> A "collective right" is like the right to free
>> speech/religion/etc - for all, regardless.
>>
>> Seems a sound point of view to me.
>
> Can the "collective" be recognized as a citizen?
Try "the Body Politic" or the "Body of the People", as the Founders were
wont to say.
"17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms,
is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing
Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to
be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community
will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict
Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."
George Mason, "Amendments to the New Constitution of Government"
> Can the "collective" be called to jury duty?
Jurors are taken from the Body of the People, just like militia enrollees
should be according to George Mason:
"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except
a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia
of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration,
the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes,
high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the
lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the
higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the
most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected.
Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to
militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours,
there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this
national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be
different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they
will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate
people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the
officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If
there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a
clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in
actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual
nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they
are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all
classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not
be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be
administered by different people. We know what they are now, but
know not how soon they may be altered."
George Mason. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on
the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates,
Volume 3] Monday, June 16, 1788. pp 425-426
> Only an individual can exercise a right.
And only the Body of the People can have the right to keep and bear arms
under the Second Amendment.
The states already grant liberal gun rights. You don't deserve and you
will not steal superfluous rights that don't mean a goddamned thing
simply because the NRA whipped you into a paranoid frenzy over fake
rights.
We need the well-regulated militia, aka the National Guard, which is
NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF OUR STATE.
You are not necessary to that purpose.
> A "collective right" is a fiction. It means that the "collective" is
> treated under law as a protected category. It means that no individual
> right exists. "Civil rights", "civil liberties" are NOT unalienable
> rights. They are administrative grants of privilege.
Says who, Slobbo? Cite your sources so we can have an informed
discussion about collective rights.
Or admit you're fulla babyshit as usual.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Strabo
> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
> news:rrXln.17557$mn6....@newsfe07.iad:
>
>> Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Says who, Slobbo? Cite your sources so we can have an informed
> discussion about collective rights.
>
> Or admit you're fulla babyshit as usual.
>
I see they've got you working overtime. What do you get, 5 cents a word?
nraclaptrap
@newsfe11.iad:
You fucking gunwhore, if I got paid for this like Sandshitter gets paid
by the NRA I wouldn't have to sell my guns to pay the bills. All both of
them.
The problem is that the truth is already well-known and widely
understood, so nobody's hiring any truth tellers to state the oughta-be-
obvious.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
RT
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:25:19 -0500, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >>>"Frito Pendejo" <fr...@pendejo.com> wrote in message
Cite ->
> The guy is axing to be impeached
For what? Sport fishing? HAHAHAHAHAH
Benj
> YOU LIE!
>
> "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
> Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court s decision in D.C. v.
> Heller."
>
> Point proven!
Ding! Ding! Ding!
For the first time in your miserable life you are actually correct!
Some time ago (when I was still a member) the ACLU decided to review
their position on the Second Amendment due to their embarrassing
hypocritical previous position against the Second Amendment as part of
the Constitution. They very nearly came around to standing for ALL
rights. But the ACLU leadership took a long hard look at their left-
wing money tree and discovered that while having huge balls they
seemed to have left them in their other pants! They bit their tongues
and made soothing noises to all their lefty lawyers and donors. Only
the Nevada ACLU chapter actually supports all the rights in the Bill
of Rights now.
Yep. Lee is right (wash my mouth out with soap!) And it's why I
resigned from the ACLU.
Supporting the ACLU now is like supporting the mafia. They do a lot of
good in the neighborhood... except for the people they kill!
Point proven!
Benj
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:37:59 +0000 (UTC), nraclaptrap wrote:
> > The only right granted by the Second Amendment - and it is not granted by
> > the gods - is that of the whole body of the people to use the well-
> > regulated militia, today's National Guard, while prohibiting the federal
> > government from disarming it or making it ineffective by sending the NG
> > overseas for numerous tours of duty for fake wars.
>
> The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it restricts the power of
> government. There is a difference.
Absolutely. Even animals have the right of self-defense by being born
here. And humans are not less. The Heller case (amazingly) recognized
this fact. So you can call that a right granted by "chance" or
"nature" or "the Gods" or "God" or "G_d" or however you wish to term
what founding fathers called "the creator". What you call it is up to
you. The fact that the rights are pre-existing and possessed just by
being born here is NOT up to you OR those in power unless they choose
to usurp those rights as apparently Lee and his comrades intend to
do.
Benj
> > The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights,
>
> I can prove it does. Can you prove it doesn't, dumbass?
Sure you can, Comrade. How you gonna prove it? Stop by the Brady
Campaign office and pick up a few pamphlets?
All you have to do is READ the words an you can see it is a
restriction on government. Oh wait. READ. I can see this is going to
be a problem!
Shall not be infringed
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry
nraclaptrap
cee2c3...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> YOU LIE!
>>
>> "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
>> Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court s decision in D.C. v.
>> Heller."
>>
>> Point proven!
>
> Ding! Ding! Ding!
> For the first time in your miserable life you are actually correct!
Thank you, Blowjobacoby.
> Yep. Lee is right (wash my mouth out with soap!) And it's why I
> resigned from the ACLU.
I called the ACLU and they said you were kicked out for groping the male
teenagers and you said, you just wanted to see what kind of guns they were
carrying...
In their shorts!
Shame on you, Blowjobacoby.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
76b282...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 7, 6:42 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights,
>>
>> I can prove it does. Can you prove it doesn't, dumbass?
>
> Sure you can, Comrade. How you gonna prove it?
I can cite US Supreme Court justices who say the Constitution does grant
fundamental rights. You can't cite a USSC justice who claims the
Constitution does not grant fundamental rights.
And before you begin cutting & pasting, Cruikshank doesn't work. Kopout
intentionally misconstrued the passage you're thinking of, if you're
thinking at all.
"This court has always given a broad and liberal construction to
the constitution, so as to enable congress, by legislation, to
[109 U.S. 3, 51] enforce rights secured by that instrument.
The legislation congress may enact, in execution of its power to
enforce the provisions of this amendment, is that which is
appropriate to protect the right granted. Under given
circumstances, that which the court characterizes as corrective
legislation might be sufficient. Under other circumstances
primary direct legislation may be required. But it is for
congress, not the judiciary, to say which is best adapted to the
end to be attained."
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883). Justice Harlen, dissenting.
Bet you can't read the whole paragraph.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Shadenfreude
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in news:ams2p59btt2qrqu566atk3c7slvhj5sali@
>4ax.com:
>
>
>>>>I've got an NRA card ... right next to my ACLU card.
>>>>
>>>>If that sounds contradictory to you then you're still on level one.
>>>>Try harder.
>>>
>>> What's the ACLU's position on fake Second Amendment gun rights?
>>
>>The ACLU steers pretty clear of 2nd-amendm
>ent stuff.
>>This is wise.
>
>YOU LIE!
>
>"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
>Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court�s decision in D.C. v.
>Heller."
>
>Point proven!
ACLU of Nevada Supports Individual's Right to Bear Arms
http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual\u2019s-right-bear-arms
In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning the
D.C. handgun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller) the ACLU of Nevada
considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the
right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to
bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The
ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other
constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate
Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated
individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's
Declaration of Rights.
POINT PROVEN!
Klaus Shadenfreude
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:26a32867-d235-4b60-bc5b-
>76b282...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 7, 6:42 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> > The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights,
>>>
>>> I can prove it does. Can you prove it doesn't, dumbass?
>>
>> Sure you can, Comrade. How you gonna prove it?
>
>I can cite US Supreme Court justices who say the Constitution does grant
>fundamental rights. You can't cite a USSC justice who claims the
>Constitution does not grant fundamental rights.
>
>And before you begin cutting & pasting, Cruikshank doesn't work. Kopout
>intentionally misconstrued the passage you're thinking of, if you're
>thinking at all.
"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... It is found wherever
civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the
people by the Constitution. "
That's plain enough even for you.
"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."
>Bet you can't read the whole paragraph.
Bet you can't read.