Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Liberal Alternative to the NRA (354 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  funny... (11+ / 0-)

    I wasn't aware that the second amendment is in such danger that there needs to be another organization to lie, er, bring awareness of it's fragility.

    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

    by lcj98 on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:30:06 AM PST

    •  Guess you haven't been perusing this site (10+ / 0-)

      for long then?

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:31:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, you see.... (5+ / 0-)

      ...when you conflate any and all legislation having to do with guns with "ZOMGteh2ndAmendmentisDOOMED!!!1!" then yes, it does seem like the 2nd is in some form of danger. Though that "danger" appears to be limited to "reverting to the understanding of the text that was commonly held up until 2007 when five right-wing conservatives decided it meant something else."

      But really, America from 1994-2004, when the AWB was in place, was just a totalitarian wasteland; a post-apocalyptic, nightmarish Hellscape to rival anything the fevered dreams of madmen could conjure. Don't you remember?

      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

      by JR on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:17:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  According to the history of court decisions (8+ / 0-)

        involving the second amendment, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the BoR.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:19:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And if that were the whole of Heller... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, PsychoSavannah, Miss Blue

          ...then it would have been a 9-0 opinion.

          But it wasn't. Heller placed new and novel restrictions on what sorts of regulations could be enacted covering arms, despite numerous historical precedents---from leaving them unloaded, to storing shot and powder separately, to disarming in public locations, etc.--that ran counter to Scalia's political views reasoned jurisprudence.

          "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

          by JR on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:27:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The "dissents" were not and are not legally (6+ / 0-)

            binding.  And some of those dissenters, Stevens, just made things up ignoring ACTUAL history.

            RKBA: The States' Ratification Documents

            Please present us with your historical narrative, I've given you mine.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:49:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's your point? (4+ / 0-)

              Of course a dissent isn't legally binding. That doesn't mean the analysis it uses is wrong, or that it cites incorrect facts. It just means that five justices didn't agree to it.

              As to your narrative, the tonnage of things I find wrong with it would fill a diary. You conflate recognizing natural rights with conferring political ones, and use that conflation to attack those who correctly note that the Constitution does the latter. You ignore the context of the discussion surrounding conscientious objection to craft an individual right in place of a state's right (your error is in thinking that the "scrupulous of bearing arms" language was about an individual right to bear arms, not about an individual right to religion coupled with a state's collective right to maintain a militia--it was a very sloppy slide on your part). You commit the sin of completely ignoring that one of the principal functions of the state, and an enumerated power of Congress, is to suppress insurrections, and fail to look for any historical clues as to how to tell what's an insurrection and what's resistance to tyranny. (To settle the matter for you, I did what you couldn't be bothered to do and actually read the original House debates over amending the Constitution--at no time was the militia ever discussed absent the control of state authorities, leading to the conclusion that the difference between an insurrection to be quashed and a rebellion to be cheered is the involvement of the state, NOT one of individual judgment made by any gang of armed thugs. These debates are all online--read them yourself.)

              Now, by contrast, Stevens and Breyer looked at what laws were actually in place at the time of the Founding, at the time of the Ratification of the 2nd Amendment, and in states and colonies that had recognized a right to arms. And they found plenty of examples of laws that would have been foreclosed by the majority's reading of the 2nd. They didn't "just make things up," as you claim without evidence. They cited practices at the time that would cast light on the original public meaning of the text, which was the argument being used by Scalia et. al to strip bare the people's collective authority to limit dangers to society. And not even Scalia claimed--as you recklessly do here--that they were just making things up. Rather, Scalia conceded that the laws existed, and simply said that most of them didn't bear on his analysis, and the ones that did weren't that important so he'd ignore them. Scalia's best argument was that the laws Breyer cited imposed lesser penalties than the ones at issue in Heller, but he didn't argue that the laws were fictitious.

              In short, your argument has more holes than a downrange beer can.

              "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

              by JR on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:22:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow, maybe you should have written a diary or (5+ / 0-)

                PM'd me.

                First off, the constitution does not "confer" rights.  They existed long before the piece of paper was written.

                If we look at "insurrection" and what that entails, that would be unconstitutional.  Alas, the restoration of Constitutional Law is not unlawful or "out of bounds" within the context of our Republic.

                See, The Battle Of Athens, 1946.

                In our most recent history, armed Americans cleaned house, so to speak AND restored our constitutional law system.

                The "collective right" of the State to organize armed citizens into a Militia, presupposes that they have the unalienable right to be armed in the first place.  AND since our Constitution was meant to limit our government, to construe it in any other fashion than limiting whom they could "regulate", ie the armed citizens while in active duty as the militia, is historically incorrect and misdirection.

                The State can "regulate" the militia, as per the 2nd A, but it says nothing about the rest of us.

                Stevens ignored the actual First Debates in Congress and the INTENT of the 2nd A.  History that you yet to have to address.  

                Aren't we the ones that always have said, it's not how it's written but what was the intent??? TO limit the power of the Central Government and to never deny any person the right to keep and bear arms.  The majority of our "United States" have explicitly put that into their own State Constitutions.  Stevens ignores these things to suit his own agenda.

                How did he explain the Militia Act of 1792?  He didn't, he ignored it.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:52:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Still very sloppy and illogical. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, Miss Blue

                  Sorry for the dismissive tone, but these are some very specious claims you're making. I would have happily PMed you had you not made an open request for a reply, but having done so, an open reply was warranted.

                  To argue that "the Constitution does not 'confer' rights" is to completely miss the point of natural rights. You should argue that the Constitution doesn't confer, but only recognizes, a subset of rights--natural rights--that predate government. But to flatly declare that the Constitution doesn't confer political rights is completely wrong. There is no natural right to participate in government--how could there be, if natural rights predate the government?! Yet the Constitution most assuredly covers rights concerning participation in government, doesn't it? You can't be excluded from voting or service based on age, race, religion...these aren't natural rights in the slightest. You have a right to trial for crimes--and very specific rights if charged with treason--but those courts and that crime couldn't exist in a state of nature. The Constitution, in addition to recognizing unenumerated, natural rights, also creates any number of rights essential for a political community to exist. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that the entire document begins and ends with the Ninth Amendment.

                  Your point about insurrection is completely baffling. How can we not look at what it is and what it entails, and how could that possibly be unconstitutional? IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION! Article I, §8: "The Congress shall have provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Are you seriously saying that we can't attempt to define that term before giving Congress power to call out armed forces against us? That's about the most statist position you could take!

                  And this:

                  The "collective right" of the State to organize armed citizens into a Militia, presupposes that they have the unalienable right to be armed in the first place.
         just laughably illogical. It presupposes no such thing, nor does it need to! Suppose a state doesn't wish to avail itself of its right to maintain a militia: why would it need to have an armed populace for that purpose? Moreover, why would the right to arms have to be "unalienable" in order for a state that did wish to have a militia to field one? Could the state not have a subset of the population--say, free and regimentally trained males aged 18-35--perform that function? Why would everyone else need arms in that situation, and not just those who are qualified to serve in such a militia? Your claim is nonsense.

                  Citing to the debates over the adoption of the BoR--which, incidentally, I specifically addressed in my first reply to you--doesn't help your argument.  The primary threat to liberty the Representatives were hoping to resist was that of a standing army--Elbridge Gerry doesn't mince words about that point--and that ship has already sailed. Further, the means they would use for such resistance would, in every single instance mentioned, have been a state militia under state authority. They don't describe an individual right to resist the federal government, only preserving the states' rights to do so (we can argue about whether or not that is good policy or not in light of the Civil War). This was a debate about states' powers, not individuals, and I said that above.

                  Lastly, if you want to make the intent argument, you probably ought to stop voting for candidates who support maintaining a standing army during peacetime, because eliminating the risks of that "bane of liberty" was the actual intent of the Second Amendment, and the debates, and the laws enacted around the time of its adoption, clearly indicate that the intent was to empower states to resist the central government. If you're reading the record beyond that, you're reading into it what you want to see, not what's actually there.

                  "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

                  by JR on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:39:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow, you go for it! Thanks for the respectful (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, noway2


                    Issue #1:  The State is not superior to the individual.  Only when that individual violates certain rules we've all agreed upon.  Such as Crimes and Punishment.  We grant the State limited Police Powers to keep society "peaceful".  We used to call them Peace Officers, not Law Enforcement Officers.

                    The State is the neutral arbiter when we cannot agree. My rights end where yours begin.  

                    Issue #2:  Insurrection/rebellion is when someone wishes to overthrow our duly appointed government and institute their own "rules".  As per that piece of paper, We The People can modify and rescind said and rewrite it if necessary, see Article V.  Since the Southern States failed to follow the rules, they were in rebellion.  AND we must both admit, to the victor goes the spoils.  It's only called insurrection/rebellion until you lose.  It depends on who is in power as to how those terms are defined, sadly.  We've seen it evolve over the last 10 yrs here.  "White Al Queda", "Domestic Terrorist", etc.  I'm sure you're aware the Animal Enterprises Act make's protesting any animal operation, a terrorist offense...see how that works???

                    I advocate no such thing here.  Armed rebellion is akin to someone invading and deciding they don't like our piece of paper and want to institute one of their own designs.  That is unacceptable in our "civil society." The Whiskey Rebellion revealed for us that problem.  AND the Battle of Athens reveals for us that some things ARE acceptable. Armed American Citizens restored law and order and rested away from a corrupt institutionalized "political machine" their unlawful political power.  None of those Americans were ever arrested for insurrection or rebellion.

                    There is a very clear historical difference that few are willing to even look at, for some odd reason I haven't figured out yet.  As a historian, I see things a bit differently than most here.

                    The key quote for me on the intent of the 2nd A is contained within the First Debates In Congress:

                    From Pg 778

                        "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                        This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

                        "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.

                    You missed the part about the individual right to keep and bear arms.  I've bolded it for you.  Right there the very First Congress is saying they cannot disarm the American Citizen. The reasons given afterwards are simply IMMATERIAL. And, might I be so bold as to state, just because the First Congress gave their reasons, does not exclude other reasons, except for rebellion or insurrection.  

                    Odd isn't it???  As for my voting record,  I did vote for Ross Perot AND this most recent election, I voted against Romney. Not many choices these days.

                    Issue #3:

                    Suppose a state doesn't wish to avail itself of its right to maintain a militia:
                    Premise is faulty.  A State has no inherent rights whatsoever.  The only powers it may wield are the ones we grant it.  I think the Swiss improved on our model a bit, they've never had a standing army.  We are not discussing the rights of subjects and their divine potentate here.  
                    See Hamilton's Federalist #84:  It's a letter he penned to the People of my State, the State of New York:

                    It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA.


                    But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.


                    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

                    Issue #4:

                    The idea of "natural rights" vs "political rights", nope never bought into that argument.  We, as Americans are born with certain unalienable rights....  The government is instituted to protect those rights.  They are therefore OBLIGATED to do so.  How is that obligation meted out? By your incorrect ideal of "political rights", nope those are lawful obligations we agreed our created government would follow.  Such as Equity Under Law (a personal "biggie" for me as a transgendered woman), Due Process, Trial by Jury, etc.

                    They aren't rights at all but legal obligations our government is meant to follow.  HUGE difference, from my perspective.

                    I've read nothing more or less in those Ratification Documents, if you dig a little deeper into our history you'll find that the 13 Original States biggest issues was "who paid for these things"?  That was another motivating factor in the Dick Act being passed in 1903.

                    Hey, I just realized you didn't address the Militia Act of 1792?  Why's that?  The government acted as I've explained, that the individual MUST be armed, supplying their own weapons to comply with said????

                    Odd again, isn't it???

                    Then you'd have to address how was it that children, YES, OH MY GOD, Children! Children would go to school with firearms, they clearly weren't part of the "organized militia" how dare they keep and bear arms?!

                    What about the women?  We were armed as well, the Constitution didn't apply to us now did it???  We couldn't be part of the militia, yet you didn't see or hear of the Federal Government (or any State Governments, for that matter) outlawing women from owning firearms OR going about and rounding up these people, did you???  

                    If the right was only meant for the militia, as per your claim, you have a lot of 'splaning to do!  (Imagine Ricky Ricardo saying that please, I loved the man!)

                    One wonders how we ever got this far, really.  History tells a completely different version than the one you've presented.

                    Why's that???

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:44:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is really hard to engage with. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero, PsychoSavannah, sneakers563

                      I'm sorry, but the basic premises you're beginning with have no bearing in history or theory, and many of these points you're making are absolute nonsense.

                      Pretending that all rights are natural rights? I can't argue with that--it simply isn't reality. You never answered my earlier points that many of the rights in the Constitution are derived from the form of our government and meant to govern our interactions with it. Those are rights, but they are not natural rights by any reasonable definition (or is there some principle of natural rights theory that says that 30 is the appropriate age to be allowed to run for the Senate, or that everyone gets to petition the government?). Want to say they are? You have a whole lot of work to make that case. (And it seems that you failed to keep reading the debates you've cited--check out Mr. Benson's comments on the next page regarding the differences between natural rights and those that are extended through the "humanity" of legislatures.)

                      You think that individuals are responsible for changing the government when necessary? Great: what is the legitimate means for doing so? In the case of the initial Revolution that split us from Britain, and in the situations described by the framers of the 2nd Amendment, the only legitimate means were through political communities--first the colonies, then the states--and not through independent action. There's no point in arguing to the contrary: the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. The state militias were meant to provide a check against both insurrectionists and tyrants, but they are always meant to be answerable to state or federal authorities. And those authorities are answerable not to whoever takes up arms, but the voting public. Those are not the same communities.

                      You think what you bolded from Gerry supports an individual right to keep and bear arms? I don't read anything of the sort there: I see that a proposed clause--one which was ultimately rejected--that in Gerry's (slightly paranoid) view could have allowed the central government to unilaterally disarm a religious minority. That doesn't mean they couldn't disarm any groups--Gerry didn't want to see slaves armed, for example--but that this particular clause opened an avenue for abuse that he saw as dangerous. You've taken too big a leap to say that means it's an individual right. It's an untenable claim based on the evidence you've relied upon.

                      (And, as a historian, you yourself should know how utterly irresponsible it is to attribute one Representative's words in one context to the entire Congress and claim it fully represents their views. That not only runs against basic rules of historiography, it also runs counter to our system of government, where his views mingle with those of the other representatives, state legislators, and delegates who participate in the ratification debate. That's shoddy history at best, perverting history to match your preconceptions at worst.)

                      As for the Militia Act of 1792, that cuts harder against your case than you realize. You need look no further than Article I, §8 to see that Congress may provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia--there's no reason they would need the 2nd Amendment to pass the Militia Act. Notice also that they didn't compel all individuals to be armed, but only a subset of the population--that's hardly a case for a universal, unalienable right exiting.

                      And another mistake you've made: I have never argued that the governments--state and federal--couldn't forego regulation if they so chose. They have discretion: I'm not the one arguing the absolutist position. Legislatures need not write every law they are empowered to: it's where they actually have acted that you look for clues as to the extent of their authority. Starting from an absolutist premise, and looking only for details that might support your position, is a cardinal sin in social science. And as long as that's how you think you should be arguing this issue, we have no reason to continue discussing it.

                      The reason "history tells a completely different version," in your view, is that you're doing a horrible job of interpreting the history.

                      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

                      by JR on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:09:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, so much for "honest debate". (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        noway2, FrankRose

                        History is a cold hard teacher, that is my only "absolute" position.

                        The founding document is our constitution.  From that our central/federal gov't came into existence.  A legal fiction, nothing more or less.  

                        I pretend nothing, putting words into my mouth doesn't solve the dilemma you face. The English Bill of Rights was the inheritance of our Founders, they renounced those privileges they were granted as subjects of the Crown when they won the revolutionary war.

                        You'd have me believe that they would re-institute the same tyrannical controls in the nation they were creating, poppycock!   The English BoR's granted only Protestants the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

                        What was "The Shot Heard Around The World", the first salvo of our Revolutionary War when the colonists fended off the British Troops at Concord and Lexington, when they tried to disarm them.

                        The only untenable claims being made here is when you try to rewrite the words spoken by Mr. Gerry. He wasn't talking about a specific group, ie those having religious scruples.  He was talking about anyone.  The Congress could then claim no one could keep and bear arms through an arbitrary power.  Our entire First Congress agreed and struck that final part out, did they not?  Yep.

                        The red herring you employed further is revealed by this simple fact.  What did you say again?  "...where his views mingle with those of the other representatives, state legislators, and delegates who participate in the ratification debate.  That's shoddy history at best, perverting history to match your preconceptions at worst..."

                        Shoddy history and preconceived notions, funny....Explain please the War of 1812.  Explain how the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to send their militia. Explain please how the militia of New York didn't engage after sending them.  The men refused to fight a war that wasn't of their making. The militia from New Hampshire refused as well, if I recall correctly.  The people in the militia decided if the war was just or not.  True democracy.  Odd isn't it?  None of these States or their militia were tried for treason were they? Nope.  Did the Federal Government come in and arrest the Governors or the men that refused to fight? Nope.

                        So much for that theory of yours. History proves otherwise.

                        How do you explain away New Hampshire's demands included in their Ratification Documents?

                        XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
                        Or Rhode Island's demands:
                        XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well- regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms,
                        Or Virginia or North Carolina, New York, etc????

                        How do you escape these historical facts? Will you ignore the State's own Constitutions that enumerate the 2nd Amendment as an individual unalienable right as well?  Will you pretend they were all talking about a State's militia too???

                        How do you explain the very few Supreme Court Cases involving the 2nd A? Such as 3. Scott v. Sandford (1856):

                        The Dred Scott majority opinion listed the unacceptable consequences of black citizenship: black citizens would have the right to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have "the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state's] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
                        It took the Civil War and a Constitutional Amendment (14th) to negate the majority of this decision.  It never negated the individual right to keep and bear arms.  

                        If our Government believed this theory of yours, when this Nation was torn asunder, they could have rewritten that entire piece of paper, yet they did not.  They could have clarified what they believed the 2nd a stood for yet they remained silent.  Odd isn't it???

                        How do you explain AFTER the Civil War this Supreme Court Case????

                        United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

                            6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

                        The final issue you try to present is invalid, you said so yourself when you claimed I ignored the 10th Amendment.  Your point that the State Legislatures have discretion, you added in "the federal government" into that but doing so violates not only the 9th but the 10th A's as well.

                        We do have a Constitutional Republic not a Constitutional Democracy. The States can only do what the people of the respective States allow and has been agreed upon and written into their own State Constitutions.  Sometimes it would be easier if we didn't have this set up, but alas we do....

                        Final question:  Why haven't you addressed the Battle of Athens, 1946???  The corrupt political machine there rigged the vote and the Federal Government did nothing.  There goes your theory of "political rights" too.

                        I loathe to say this but history has proven that the only rights we have are the ones we can actually defend with force, when necessary.  

                        As a Buddhist Sage once said:

                         "If you understand, the world is the way it is; if you do not understand, the world is the way it is."

                        The way of the world is force. You may not like that. You may choose not to believe it. But it is true. The world is ruled by force.

                        FYI, I've never owned a firearm.  I have all the force I need in my own hands.  For the pen is mightier than the sword.

                        I will continue to expose the fraudulent history being told, where ever and when ever I get the opportunity.

                        Good night.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:26:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  A major fallacy of yours... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tytalus, coquiero

                 the belief, evidenced in repeated comments, that if a thing can be done, then it must have been done, and if it wasn't, then it couldn't have been. When I talk about federal discretion, it's the discretion not to legislate to the full extent of its power. Or do you think the feds have to legislate as far as possible whenever they have a grant of authority? Must they raise armies and maintain navies? Are they absolutely required to hold a national debt? Or do they have the discretion to do or not do those things as they see fit in their legislative judgment? That is discretion, it's a key part of our system, and if you don't get that then you don't get how the Constitution works (a conclusion that's pretty hard to escape at this point).

                          Your tangent about the War of 1812 is so off-topic that I'm going to simply ignore it, rather than try to fathom what possible relation it has to the point at hand. (You mean the federal government wasn't powerful enough to force the states to comply with their clear constitutional obligations during the earliest days of the Republic? Shocking! Entirely irrelevant, but shocking!)

                          Citing individual state demands is likewise irrelevant if you understand the least thing about how the Constitution is amended. If those states couldn't get the provisions they sought to attach ratified by enough states to include them into law, then what you have is the legislative equivalent of dicta.

                          You also don't understand federalism if you're going to say that the state constitutions "enumerate the 2nd Amendment" in any way. The states can--and most do--maintain separate protections for the right to keep and bear arms, some more extensive than the federal right, some not. That doesn't mean they have any bearing on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, only that there is a separate, state-level guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. It's a completely different subject.

                          As to why I haven't engaged you on the "Battle of Athens," it's because I don't think the 2nd Amendment justified the actions taken. If their actions were constitutionally protected, the 9th Amendment is where that protection lies: I don't delude myself--and nor should anyone with half a brain--into thinking that the Constitution enumerates a right of violent, disorganized rebellion.

                          I don't want to keep this conversation going, because at this point you seem to have all the fervor of a Tea Partier with about the same level of constitutional theory backing you up. You're just throwing random shit against a wall to see what, if anything, sticks. The document means what you think it means, and nothing--not logic, or history, or the text itself--will ever persuade you otherwise. Why should I waste any more time trying my patience?

                          "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

                          by JR on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:04:52 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Arrogance, I've met you before. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            In law school...

                            You make claims you cannot back up, the facts you cannot explain, you ignore, how convenient.

                            My legal thesis stands on the fact that the States directed the newly created central government to amend the constitution and add specific individual guarantees, when they tentatively agreed to the new "Union." Those amendment were specific, the individual had the right to keep and bear arms, for whatever reasons, be it to serve in a militia or self defense or no reason at all, the right was absolute.  You then tried to deflect these facts and say the federal government didn't have to exercise a power if it didn't want to.  That's so far in left field I'm wondering how you'll find you way back to the dugout.

                            Did you forget Hamilton's Federalist #84 that I quoted for you? Yepperie Joe, you did.

                            Your snide personal attacks aside, I don't play those immature games any longer.  The argument and history presented is a bit choppy here because it is a posting not a diary.  I provided you with said history, you've failed at all attempts to address these arguments.

                            "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

                            All your pounding on the table, personal insults and innuendo does not change the historical records nor the common law practice that the government could not exercise such authority so it did not.  Huge difference.

                            This is exactly where you lost your argument:

                            (You mean the federal government wasn't powerful enough to force the states to comply with their clear constitutional obligations during the earliest days of the Republic? Shocking! Entirely irrelevant, but shocking!)

                            I thought we weren't supposed to have a standing army? How odd that you now claim the Federal gov't didn't exercise it's authority because #1, discretion and #2, it didn't have the force.

                            Your authoritarianism is shinning through.  And at this moment you've lost any legitimacy on this topic.

                            So, in a nutshell, your position is this:  The government  couldn't exercise it's full "authority" because it lacked the force to do so.

                            Seems Hamilton's warnings should have been heeded.

                            How odd indeed.

                            You won my case for me, thanks.  

                            One final point.  The Battle Of Athens, 1946, are you ignoring it because at that time the Federal Gov't surely had the force needed yet stood by allowing for the corruption to continue?  Are they then not guilty for failing to uphold our Constitutional Republic, as their oath's demand?  Were they not, by their lack of action, complicit as well?

                            Where is it established that what those Americans did was anything even remotely close to what you've claimed here:

                            the Constitution enumerates a right of violent, disorganized rebellion.
                            Strawman, one that I personally clarified previously.  Overthrowing our government is against the constitution, restoring it's authority is not only allowed, it's demanded by that damn piece of paper.

                            You can't answer these legitimate issues so you throw in one final personal ad hominem?

                            I seem to have the fervor of a teapartier...???  ROFL...

                            You truly lost your case sir and I'm glad it's in the open for all to see.  I did suggest you PM me on this, you chose not to do so.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:08:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Jesus, does word salad come with bacon bits? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah, coquiero

                            I'll leave it to more patient people to try and figure out what the hell you're trying to say, because that has all the coherence of a Palin speech.

                            This has indeed been an instructive thread, and I'll know not to pound my head against this particular brick wall any further. Lesson learned.

                            "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

                            by JR on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:01:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ROFL, Palin speech, sweet, flattery will get you (0+ / 0-)

                            nowhere with me.

                            So, putting your head back into the sand, typical.

                            A systematic review of the historical facts is not incoherent.

                            Good day.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:24:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site