EBSB52 0 #26 December 19, 2004 QuoteOne other thing: Whether it's an individual right or not is not really the big issue. The issue is whther the 2nd Amendment will be "incorporated." That is, whether the 14th Amendment forces the individual states to adhere to the 2nd Amendment. That is, whether the 14th Amendment forces the individual states to adhere to the 2nd Amendment. Sure, the 14th makes the US Const apply to the individual states. It doesn't give direct jurisdiction to the feds though, just makes the states accountable to adhere to USC rules. For the time being, the 2nd Amendment applies only to the Feds It is a federal document that applies to feds and is enforced to the states by the 14th, right? Of course it wasn't that way upon its writing, but in 1867 or whenever the 14th was adopted, the Const was only a federal document. It hasn't been done yet. Neither has the 3rd Amendment, the 7th Amendment, nor the Grand Jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment. So, until a Court actually incoporates it, states can infringe. What hasn't been done yet? The incorporation of the Const, or at least the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th? I thought the 14th stand-alone did that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #27 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere are two separate thoughts in that sentence both of which should not be infringed and are equally important. You can't keep one and take out the other. The first thought qualifies the second thought. If the FF had wanted unregulated arms, they would not have qualified the right. The first half of the sentence cannot be disregarded. Ya, the statement self-contradicts, just as is found in other amendments. How about rights to privacy; please find me the word, "privacy" in the Const? But the 4th appellate decisions are full of statements about expectations of privacy. The original writing of the Const is as useful as an old pair of shoes; they feel real comfy, but they are futile in most applications. If the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #28 December 19, 2004 QuoteIf the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 December 19, 2004 Trust me, I was surprised about this when I learned about it. But, the 14th Amendment, while for forcing the states to apply constitutional protections, applies to privileges and immunities and due process. The court individialy decided which of these Constitutional guarantees are incorporated by the 14th Amendment. The court still hasn't decided about this issue with regards to the 2nd Amendment. It'd take a while to explain, but do some google searches and read up on it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #31 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #32 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer. Who said faith must contain logic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteThere are two separate thoughts in that sentence both of which should not be infringed and are equally important. You can't keep one and take out the other. The first thought qualifies the second thought. If the FF had wanted unregulated arms, they would not have qualified the right. The first half of the sentence cannot be disregarded. Here is a document that proves your reasoning false. Here is a link to a Senate report concerning the 2nd Amendment - it will definitely open your eyes. Gee, I just can't see WHY that report never saw the light of day....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 December 19, 2004 Quote Here is a document that proves your reasoning false. Here is a link to a Senate report concerning the 2nd Amendment - it will definitely open your eyes. I fail to see the proof. The first document does not make use of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. It also draws on the Federalist Papers, without tempering those opinions with those of the remaining Founding Fathers that wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers. The second was published by Congress, who cannot interpret laws. Why is it that so often the people who believe we should blindly support the actions of our government are the same ones who seem to be terrified of being overrun by the very same government. If people would be active in their government, the government could be kept in check without worrying about having to kill all the representatives of that government.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 December 19, 2004 QuoteI fail to see the proof. The first document does not make use of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Book: Supreme Court Gun Cases Quote: "Here's the bottom line: the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began. "They have not been quiet on the subject, and they have not disparaged individual rights—the days of saying that are now over. The High Court could change it's mind of course, but only by rejecting a record built up for hundreds of years. Don't take anyone's word for it any longer—see for yourself what the Supreme Court has said. It will make your day." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteA 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 founding fathers clearly said that arms should be regulated, even if the right of the citizens to possess them could not be infringed. Re: "Well regulated" Excerpt: "The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuote: "Here's the bottom line: the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began. I fail to see what that has to do with registration of firearms.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #38 December 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteA 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 founding fathers clearly said that arms should be regulated, even if the right of the citizens to possess them could not be infringed. Re: "Well regulated" Excerpt: "The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government." Whatever "well regulated" may mean, we can be quite sure it does NOT mean "unregulated".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote: "Here's the bottom line: the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began. I fail to see what that has to do with registration of firearms. We're not talking about gun registration here. In fact, you are the first one to even mention it. Do try and keep up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 December 20, 2004 QuoteWhatever "well regulated" may mean, we can be quite sure it does NOT mean "unregulated". Once again your eyeballs seem to be selective in what they see. What that article said, is that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the guns. Militias are indeed well-regulated. Every state has rules and regulations codified to regulate their state militias. It's not about gun control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #41 December 20, 2004 QuoteThe founding fathers clearly said that arms should be regulated, even if the right of the citizens to possess them could not be infringed. Whatever "well regulated" may mean, we can be quite sure it does NOT mean "unregulated". I'll put it in small words for you, prof. QuoteA 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 militia should be well-regulated (whether you take well regulated to mean "in good working order" or "has many regulations and requirements"). There is no mention of "well-regulated arms," is there? "Well-regulated" modifies "militia," not "arms."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #42 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer. If as the government you cannot look to a creator, there can be no rights under such a government granted by such a creator. And the total inconsistency in the words selected by the founding fathers and such an interpretation was what I was sarcastically pointing out. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #43 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhatever "well regulated" may mean, we can be quite sure it does NOT mean "unregulated". Once again your eyeballs seem to be selective in what they see. What that article said, is that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the guns. Militias are indeed well-regulated. Every state has rules and regulations codified to regulate their state militias. It's not about gun control. Where did I say anything about guns? You imagine my answers and then respond to your imagination.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #44 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe founding fathers clearly said that arms should be regulated, even if the right of the citizens to possess them could not be infringed. Whatever "well regulated" may mean, we can be quite sure it does NOT mean "unregulated". I'll put it in small words for you, prof. QuoteA 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 militia should be well-regulated (whether you take well regulated to mean "in good working order" or "has many regulations and requirements"). There is no mention of "well-regulated arms," is there? "Well-regulated" modifies "militia," not "arms." Did I write anything to the contrary? You imagined it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #45 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer. If as the government you cannot look to a creator, there can be no rights under such a government granted by such a creator. And the total inconsistency in the words selected by the founding fathers and such an interpretation was what I was sarcastically pointing out. Whether or not there is a Creator has no influence whatsoever on whether the government should promote religion. You are confusing two totally separate issues.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #46 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf the only rights you have are those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe privacy is one of those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Haven't you heard? There is no creator since there is an inane separation of church and state. Total lack of logic in that answer. If as the government you cannot look to a creator, there can be no rights under such a government granted by such a creator. And the total inconsistency in the words selected by the founding fathers and such an interpretation was what I was sarcastically pointing out. Whether or not there is a Creator has no influence whatsoever on whether the government should promote religion. You are confusing two totally separate issues. The religious right seem to convolute the two and refuse to allow them to be separate, then espouse the Constitution, which is a document that requires the separation of gov and religion. It's futile, the arguments will continue to circumvent the issues. There is religion and there is teh gov, the FF designed it so that the people could live their lives w/o the gov assigning a religion for the people to follow, or just making any religion to be part of the gov. The next argument might be one of asking why GOD is on our money if the FF didn't want the convolution of the two. Was GOD on the currency of the late 1700's? I don't know, I'm just asking. The current currency design isn't that old, so that might reflect the interests of other organizations. How about Confederate notes; did they refer to GOD? I don't know when they started them, just when they became obsolete. This would be an area of interest to help determine the tollerance level of what the FF meant and to what degree they meant for religion to be separate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #47 December 20, 2004 Quote Was GOD on the currency of the late 1700's? I don't know, I'm just asking. I think it was pretty recently (which respect to the age of the nation) that "In God We Trust has been added, but I am not positive.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #48 December 20, 2004 QuoteQuote Was GOD on the currency of the late 1700's? I don't know, I'm just asking. I think it was pretty recently (which respect to the age of the nation) that "In God We Trust has been added, but I am not positive. Any currency experts here? Any coin collectors? Show us ur knowledge! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #49 December 20, 2004 Well, since I define expert as the person who knows the most about any given topic in the room at that time, sure, I'm an expert. The exact phrase was added to US coins sometime around the civil war. ps - This might help.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #50 December 20, 2004 QuoteWell, since I define expert as the person who knows the most about any given topic in the room at that time, sure, I'm an expert. The exact phrase was added to US coins sometime around the civil war. ps - This might help. OK, so just after skimming the referrence and your comment, "In God We Trust" wasn't a founding father's thing on the money, or possibly in the pledge (maybe someone can shed light there), so maybe that wasn't the intent of the FF. So to summarize, how can we refer to the FF thoughts and intentions in regard to the 2nd in regard to specific gun ownership when those thoughts can't be supported with other Amendments like the first in regard to what separation of churcha and state meant and to what degree? Again, it all falls back on the US Sup Ct NO MATTER WHAT and there is no way around having some body of governement interpret that intention of the FF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
