www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/news/682165/posts
Does anyone think the Founders wanted to grant militia and soldiers the right to bear arms? They wanted to PREVENT governments from taking arms away from us. Each of the amendments tells government what it can and cannot do. Since the Founders didn't like standing armies, they favored a volunteer service. They favored a subservient government which, serviced the people and didn't take away rights. And while we're waiting, we better not interpret it the way it was written. Does anyone think the Founders wanted to grant militia and soldiers the right to bear arms? The New York Times, all liberals, urban high school students, and most of the new immigrants flooding our country, all think that the american people of 1789 would not have created a new country called the United States until and unless the second amendment was included, thereby allowing only the men in our "army" the right to have a gun. Unfortunately, the mental processes of liberals and of our new immigrants from asia and latin america is not very deep. Just why they think only America needed a "Second Amendment" to ensure that our troops had guns is beyond me, yet that is what they believe. It is only a matter of time before these people become the majority of our voters. The "people" might decide they don't like the government. Perhaps, one day they will "read into it" that a social dictatorship solves all their problems. The Supreme Court has ruled that the "people" of the second amendment are the same "people" as the ones in first, fourth, and tenth amendments. Guess he missed that one or either he not only reads them like he wants to he also only reads the ones he wnts to. He must think we are little children and that he's reading a fairytail to. You do not grant a state or goverment rights you grant them power. The whole sum of the Bill of RIGHTS was to make sure certain rights where retained by the PEOPLE. PEOPLE that's you and me not, Mississppi and the United States. Why on earth do the libs think the Founders were hiding some deep dark interpretation? We have these old courthouses with the ten commandments that somehow are now anti-Constituional. The entire point of the Constitution guarantying a Republican form of government and a citizen's Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. The fact remains that when a significant portion of the American electorate favor the regulation of firearms they can only Constitutionally achieve what they favor by amending the Constitution. What does THIS have to do with the price of tea in China? His statement is ludicrous simply because it doesn't address the question surrounding what the Amendment SAYS. He's trying to argue his point by arguing a different point; Whether or not there is a militia or a standing army does NOT change the wording of the Amendment, that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms may NOT be infringed! And in the First Amendment, we read: Congress shall make no law . So I guess that means that the "people" referred to regarding the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances must be the state legislatures. And the phrase "keep and bear arms" is, as most commentators note, a military reference. What is the point of securing the state's "right" to have armed soldiers, militia or police? Such "right" existed in Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and securing it by the amendment would be COMPLETELY superfluous. The only sense as a constitutional right this amendnment can have is that first: people have right to own guns second: armed individuals have right to organise into armed grass-root militia units. I see an analogy with the First Amendment: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; It means that people can speak alone and if they wish they can organise into a group. There are situations when tyranical government allows individual to beg for something by punish him if he dares to organise a group to demand something. Same way with the Second Amendment - you can own a gun AND you can organise an armed unit (in an orderly fashion same way as a group demonstration should be orderly). To claim that the government controlled armed units are intended in the amendment equals claiming the the First Amendment is to provide government run parades (like in a totalitarian country) 84 12 posted on 05/12/2002 5:41:25 AM PDT by 85 A. Pole 86 Post Reply | 87 Private Reply | 88 To 1 | 89 View Replies To: The Raven But in Article I we also read that the people will elect the House of Representatives -- and the determination of who can vote will be left to state law, in just the way that militia service would remain subject to Congressional and state regulation. And in the First Amendment, we read: Congress shall make no law . So I guess that means that the "people" referred to regarding the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances must be the state legislatures. There it held that the Second Amendment was designed to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, not to guarantee a private right to possess firearms. Miller the federal trial court held that the National Firearms Act of 1934 violated the defendants' Second Amendment rights. After Miller and Layton's victory in the trial court, defendant Miller was murdered and defendant Layton disappeared. Supreme Court, no written or oral arguments on behalf of the defendants were presented to the Supreme Court. This is not true, in fact, the court held that the entire populace constituted the militia, and that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to keep and bear militia-type arms. The Miller court decided the following: 1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states. The clear meaning of the Second Amendment is that in order for the state to be able to form a well-regulated militia the citizens must have the individual right to gun ownership. Obliviously, those bent on tyranny for our nation would want to twist these words to suit their agenda. In a time when four of the nine Supreme Court Justices are willing to ignore the Constitution it is serves us well to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. Some members of the senate sought to amend Article 5 by inserting the clause "in defense of state" after the clause "keep and bear arms". If passed, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would have been a collective right (as the Leftists argue). All current firearm laws are usurpations of power, which is tyranny. BTW, prior to submission to the states for ratification, Articles 3 and 4 were combined into Article 3, and Article 5 became Article 4. Why you would think they never heard of the 'Bill of Rights'. Have to wonder what the alleged public schools teach kids about the 'Bill of Rights'. To view any of the first ten amendments without acknowleging they form the whole of the 'Bill of Rights', merely shows the intent of the author. Must mean something diffenrent when liberals "give" rights than when the framers acknowledge rights of citizens. The Arab leaders must have taught the liberal wackos how to use ignorance of the people to their advantage. In those days, the gun grabbers wouldn't dare ban any kind of gun. Instead, they used the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate, but not ban, the weapons. They figured this loophole would allow them to place a prohibitive tax on each transfer of a machine gun, allowing them to virtually ban the guns, while claiming to merely apply "reasonable restrictions". In those days, they knew they could not outright ban any kind of gun. The thought process of the gun grabbers has now degenerated to the point where they think the federal government is the sole source of permission as to who can own what guns. To them, the debate is already over, and it's just a matter of time until the government demands we turn in what little it permitted us to still posess. And the phrase "keep and bear arms" is, as most commentators note, a military reference. Very selective choice of compari...
|
http://csua.com/feed/