← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Bardamu
Thread ID: 16741 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-02-14
2005-02-14 02:08 | User Profile
Here in San Francisco the city government is gearing up to make private ownership of firearms illegal for the regular citizen. How is this possible considering our constitutional guarantee to the right to bear arms? Is anyone aware of the legal rationalization behind this blatant unconstitutionality?
2005-02-14 02:36 | User Profile
Bardamu, The second amendment reads, '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.'
In almost every case, the restrictionists take the view that the 'well-ordered militia' is a national guard-type unit, which does not include the citizenry at large. They say that since we have a national guard, then that is the 'well-ordered militia,' and that private gun ownership is therefore not protected. This opinion is, of course, completely ahistorical. In colonial times, the militia was comprised of the citizenry, and the text of the amendment means that the only way this militia can truly be 'well-ordered' is for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, we are rapidly approaching the point where the government will cease looking for even torturously-reasoned constitutional cover. They will simply decree what they will.
2005-02-14 03:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]In almost every case, the restrictionists take the view that the 'well-ordered militia' is a national guard-type unit, which does not include the citizenry at large. They say that since we have a national guard, then that is the 'well-ordered militia,' and that private gun ownership is therefore not protected. This opinion is, of course, completely ahistorical.[/QUOTE] Not only is it ahistorical, it flies in the face of common sense. I mean, come on: do those clowns really expect us to believe that the intent behind the Second Amendment was to grant the government the power to keep and bear weapons? Since when has any government felt the need to make such a declaration? It goes without saying that a government will be armed.
Besides, if the Second Amendment doesn't pertain to an individual right, then why was it placed among the other amendments in the Bill of Rights? No one disputes that those other amendments all guarantee individual freedoms, but apparently we're supposed to believe that the Founders thought it fitting to drop a declaration of the government's right to raise another military force right smack in the middle of the individual right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from random searches and seizures, etc. It's just asinine.
Lastly, as I've often said, I really wouldn't care even if the Constitution didn't obviously grant me the right to bear arms. I claim that right for myself regardless, and I intend to keep it regardless of what anyone says or does. It's not for other mortals to tell me what weapons I may or may not own -- it's none of their damn business.
Bardamu,
I sympathize with your plight. I don't know what your family or job situation is, so I can only tell you what I'd do in your position. I'd think about moving, if possible. Otherwise, I'd simply keep my weapons in my home spite of the ban. F_ck those people who think they can exercise arbitrary power over you. Your life is worth just as much as theirs (and probably more).
2005-02-14 03:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] Lastly, as I've often said, I really wouldn't care even if the Constitution didn't obviously grant me the right to bear arms. I claim that right for myself regardless, and I intend to keep it regardless of what anyone says or does. It's not for other mortals to tell me what weapons I may or may not own -- it's none of their damn business.[/QUOTE] Angler, Good points. Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, etc. are rights that only exist within certain cultural contexts. They are 'man-made' rights. The right to bear arms, however, is really the right to self-defense, which is one of the only truly 'natural' rights. Every person (and indeed, every animal) will defend itself when its life is threatened, and will be justified in doing so.
2005-03-02 18:54 | User Profile
I considered getting a pistol in NYC, but the barriers were unbelievable. All told, I would have paid more than $1,000 for the gun (I was thinking of a 9mm) and the fees. The bureaucratic and paperwork runaround would have been a full-scale project on par with getting admitted to the bar. I eventually gave up, figuring the gun would just become a toy I'd take to the firing range (which would have been some distance from my place). I don't actually fear a home invasion, but I thought it might be good to have it. Eventually, however, I gave up. I was going to have to take too much time off work for all the business necessary.
And I thought to myself, "Is there a Second Amendment argument that the process and requirements are so onerous as to be unconstitutional?" But a court would probably reject the claim on public safety grounds. It would be interesting to see a Second Amendment challenge to an outright ban by San Francisco. Wonder what the NRA's legal team would say?
2005-03-02 20:44 | User Profile
[quote=Hugh Lincoln]Wonder what the NRA's legal team would say?
The NRA? The NRA?!?
HA!
They once served a useful purpose and we do owe them some thanks for the delaying tactics they've utilized over the past 25-30 years in the gun control "debate" but since, they have morphed into nothing but a bunch of shills for the GOP (those ardent defenders of the RKBA. Yeah, right). Thus, they would probably say nothing. One of the criticisms libs toss at the NRA that does have some weight is the scare tactics they use to keep the donations rolling in, such as making it sound like Hilary Clinton is coming next week to personally collect their grandpappy's over-and-under should their membership check bounce. In that respect, they're not so different from the fundraising tactics of the ADL or SPLC. Of course, they never identify the architects of the majority of gun-control schemes. They are like the Jewish organizations in that they actually need something (gun control) to fight in order to keep the cash rolling in.
[quote=Quantrill]Of course, we are rapidly approaching the point where the government will cease looking for even torturously-reasoned constitutional cover. They will simply decree what they will.
Indeed we are. Mao, that rotten old Commie, did have it right when he pontificated from whence power came, and it appears our masters have taken his words to heart, which is incidentally the entire reason for gun control, "public safety" be damned.
2005-03-02 21:20 | User Profile
The first step in taking over a country is to make sure the citizens of that country have no firearms in their homes.
If you were to look down deep as to whom is behind this movement I am willing to bet five to one that you will find the Jews.......any bets?, don't say yes or you will loose.
2005-03-02 21:47 | User Profile
Quick answer -- the constitution was scrapped at Appomattox.
Longer answer -- the Supreme Court has held that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment requires the states to abide by some, but not all of the Bill of Rights. ("Selective Incorportation.") The second amendment, for reasons you can easily guess, is not one of them.
2005-03-02 22:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Quick answer -- the constitution was scrapped at Appomattox.[/QUOTE] Correct.[QUOTE]Longer answer -- the Supreme Court has held that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment requires the states to abide by some, but not all of the Bill of Rights. ("Selective Incorportation.") The second amendment, for reasons you can easily guess, is not one of them.[/QUOTE] Of course, even if one accepts the general "selective incorporation" principle, it seems irrelevant to the RKBA. The language of the Second Amendment makes it binding on the States and the national government [I]ab initio[/I]. Moreover, rights apply against everyone. Although it's generally understood that the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply against the States, that's not how it's drafted (aside from the First Amendment). Under U.S. v. Ron Pair Enterprises, the plain meaning prevails.
2005-03-02 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The right to bear arms, however, is really the right to self-defense....[/QUOTE] ...which is really the right to life. The most fundamental right of all. [QUOTE]The second amendment reads, '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.' [/QUOTE] "[T]he right of the people" - in all other instances, "the people" is interpreted as referring to an [I]individual [/I] right.
2005-03-03 05:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]The language of the Second Amendment makes it binding on the States and the national government [I]ab initio[/I][/QUOTE]I disagree. I'll give a post I made on this subject at [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=293417943&Forum=All_Forums&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=293416030#Post293417943]Liberty Forum.[/url]> [url=http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html]This website[/url] succinctly states my position, and gives some court cases backing it up.> The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill. My next quote is convoluted, being a critique of a critique of a book, but it names authors and it comes from [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson112.html]Lew Rockwell's site[/url].> Proof that Cohen is utterly ignorant of American History comes in the next paragraph:
The book reads less like history than a call to action, since so many of its historical arguments track the current political agenda of the far right. It contends that federal courts were never given the power to strike down state laws, a pet cause of states' rights supporters today. And it maintains that the First Amendment applies only to the federal government, and therefore does not prohibit the states from imposing religion on their citizens, a view that Clarence Thomas has suggested in his church-state opinions.
In fact, for a long time, the Supreme Court took just that position. The U.S. Constitution was a document outlining the separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. Not until the language of the Fourteenth Amendment was later applied by jurists as part of the "Incorporation Doctrines" did the Bill of Rights become legally applicable to state law. As to the issue of states and churches, in the early years of the Republic, a number of states did have official churches. That is well-documented in history, and for Cohen to deny that this was the case is to engage in dishonest revisionism.
At this point, I think arguing the original intent of the Founders is about as useful as arguing that Bonnie Prince Charlie was the rightful king of England. It is an exercise in sterile antiquarianism, to borrow a phrase from Sam Francis.
2005-03-03 18:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I disagree. [/QUOTE] The language of the Second Amendment encompasses both the state and the national governments. The intent is a wholly different matter, and I am not disputing your interpretation thereof.
2005-03-03 22:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]The NRA? The NRA?!?
HA!
They once served a useful purpose and we do owe them some thanks for the delaying tactics they've utilized over the past 25-30 years in the gun control "debate" but since, they have morphed into nothing but a bunch of shills for the GOP.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that. But I thought their much-vaunted riches were illusory, and that they've actually been having financial problems.
Re: the right of self-defense as sacred but denied --- I agree, and would add that [B]the right of association and exclusion are also precious rights which are denied us by the fed-mama.[/B] If I can't set it so there aren't murderous blacks anywhere near my children, everything else is a goddamn joke.
2005-03-04 04:42 | User Profile
I don't want to start a new thread so I have to sneak in here.
This came from citypage.com......but first, the US has now the biggest airlift in operation between citys in Iraq sinse the Berling airlift because they have lost control of the major highways.
Anyway, back to citypage.com.
1-the United States is now 49th in the worlds literacy 2-the United States is now number 28 out of 40 in mathematical literacy. FROM NOW ON IS ALL IN THE US 3-20% thinks that the Earth orbits around the sun. 4-17% thinks that the Earth revolves around the sun once a day. 5-Americans with less than a 9 grade education know less than other in the world. 6-sinse the midle 90's Europe pulblishes more scientific literature than the US. 7-foreing application to US scientific schools went down 28 last year. 8-overall health performance US was 37th. 9-South Africa and the US are the only two developes countrys that don't provides health care for its people. 10-lack of health insurance kills 18,000 Americans a year. 11- 10% of Americans go humgry to bed every nite (this pisses me off) 12-infant mortality the US is number 41, even in Cuba it is better. 13-women has a 70% of dying at child birth compared to Europe. 14-the leading death reason for pregnant women in the US is murder (ouch). 15-out of the Global 500 fortune Europe has 61 companies US 41. 16-16 of the 20 biggest banks in the world are in Europe. 17-during the last decade we have lost 1.3 millions jobs to China. 18- 3.6 millions unemploys lost their benefits last year. 19-Japan, China, Taiwan and S.Korea hold 40% of our debts. 20-as of june of last year we inported more food than we exported. 21-1/3 of us childrens are born out of wedlock with 50% with only one parent. 22-we spend more money in gambling than in movies, books, DVD's and games 23-almost one millions kids were neglected or abused.
And the US of A is supposed to be number one in the world??????