V
Vibe
Guest
Really? How about one made in 2004?
P
pendennis
Guest
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
While the Constitution broadly limits the power of the Federal Government, the above Amendment, further limits states' powers.
Best,
Dennis
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
While the Constitution broadly limits the power of the Federal Government, the above Amendment, further limits states' powers.
Best,
Dennis
C
cntryboy1289
Guest
Excellent point Glenn! I guess when you take into consideration this particular amendment, you have to take into consideration all of the papers being written at the time to make sure you have an understanding of what they actually meant, or what their frame of mind might be.
As pointed out earlier, that was why I think they voted the way they did as this was in individual right. If that is the case, then I would think the authors knew that the only protection we have against tryanny or an invasion will not be a standing army or police force, but rather an armed populace, since neither can be everywhere at once. This flies in the face of those Mayors and governors that are saying this is just an outcry because it is their duty to make sure we are safe and not our own which I think most fairminded people fully understand that not government can make you safe in your own home. I think this is where the intent of the amendment comes into play more so than for a state since we all would have to agree if the populace is overrun, their can be no state militias to call to duty. Not all of the 50 states abolished their militias and not all militias are state funded which seems to reinforce this idea.
Have a good one guys!!
As pointed out earlier, that was why I think they voted the way they did as this was in individual right. If that is the case, then I would think the authors knew that the only protection we have against tryanny or an invasion will not be a standing army or police force, but rather an armed populace, since neither can be everywhere at once. This flies in the face of those Mayors and governors that are saying this is just an outcry because it is their duty to make sure we are safe and not our own which I think most fairminded people fully understand that not government can make you safe in your own home. I think this is where the intent of the amendment comes into play more so than for a state since we all would have to agree if the populace is overrun, their can be no state militias to call to duty. Not all of the 50 states abolished their militias and not all militias are state funded which seems to reinforce this idea.
Have a good one guys!!
V
Vibe
Guest
Somehow that is not what I got from readiing the founders papers. And also not what it seems the Cruikshank Court got out of them either. The BOR (with the possible exception of the 1st Amendment-which specifically mentioned Congress) was to universaly apply to ALL forms of REPUBLICAN governemnt in this country -thus the "Supreme Law of the Land" implication. It makes no sense whatsoever to, on the one hand state that these Rights are inherent and pre-existing, not dependant upon the BOR in any way -and yet on the other hand tell the States "But it's OK if YOU disregard them". It's looks more like cowardice (or actual Judicial Legislating with a decidedly pro-government/anti-individual agenda)on the part of some previous justices.
G
Greg Culpepper
Guest
1986
Vibe,
Your are absolutely correct to point out that the civilian registry of Class Three, NFA weapons was frozen in 1986. Fixing the supply to the then existent number of transferable weapons had the desired effect of pricing many folks out of the market by making the resource scarce. This was a much more effective strategy than simply applying a fixed tax as market forces continue to raise the cost of entry even faster than the value of currency shrinks. This clearly answered a compelling governmental interest as we have (so fare as I know) not suffered a single crime with a registered class three weapon since 1986. Of course between 1937 at the enactment of the NFA and 1986 there were only two crimes with NFA weapons, one of those committed by a sworn peace officer. Crime wave solved, the nation safe once again! But your point is well taken. The population is severely constrained without prohibition. Clever, those bureaucrats. Maybe we can eventually get this issue corrected as well. Thanks for expanding on my too brief remarks.
Best regards
Greg
Vibe,
Your are absolutely correct to point out that the civilian registry of Class Three, NFA weapons was frozen in 1986. Fixing the supply to the then existent number of transferable weapons had the desired effect of pricing many folks out of the market by making the resource scarce. This was a much more effective strategy than simply applying a fixed tax as market forces continue to raise the cost of entry even faster than the value of currency shrinks. This clearly answered a compelling governmental interest as we have (so fare as I know) not suffered a single crime with a registered class three weapon since 1986. Of course between 1937 at the enactment of the NFA and 1986 there were only two crimes with NFA weapons, one of those committed by a sworn peace officer. Crime wave solved, the nation safe once again! But your point is well taken. The population is severely constrained without prohibition. Clever, those bureaucrats. Maybe we can eventually get this issue corrected as well. Thanks for expanding on my too brief remarks.
Best regards
Greg
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Chuck Bogardus
Guest
The registry -is- frozen, however, if you are a SOT or a dealer, you can own a post-86. Also, corporations tend to do this better than individuals. It's easy to incorporate. And if a buzzgun costs too much for you individually, get together with a few friends, start a small company, HQ it out of one of 'em's business, and go to town... You may even make a few bucks...
V
Vibe
Guest
Which is another thing that really ticks me off. What part of "Rights" are -Of the Corporation, For the Corporation, By the Corporations?????
It's the rights of "The People" that are allegedly protected, yet Corporations, basically fictional entities - get "Rights" ? That "the People" do not???
But there are other "costs" to incorporating - like voluntarily giving up a certain amount of reasonable expectation to keep personal info personal.
jackie schmidt
New member
Vibe
Do you get the idea that there are posters on this Forum who believe that The Constitution only regulates the Federal Government, and does not pretain to State Governments??........jackie
Do you get the idea that there are posters on this Forum who believe that The Constitution only regulates the Federal Government, and does not pretain to State Governments??........jackie
You know what I like most about people trying to bend the 2nd amendment is. In every Amendment except for the 2nd, they believe that when it says person or people, the founding fathers were talking about individuals, however, when it comes to the 2nd, they believe it is talking about states and militia.....
In all instances in the Amendments, when a comma is used, a different group or reference is in place so that there is no confusion about who they were talking about. Just like the first when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I guess the right of the people to peaceably assemble means "the right of the state to peaceably assemble"....that's the libs definition or at least it would have to be since the way they are trying to rip the 2nd apart or should I say blend it together. There was no need to say that the people in the militia had the right to bear arms because that's common sense...militia has arms. The second part was to establish the fact that people have the right to bear arms. If we applied to all amendments what some want to apply to the 2nd, the constitution would be one big FUBAR.....period. Jesus...a kid with a third grade education can figure out what it means (the constitution), why...because most of the people barely had that back then and the document was meant to be simply understood by all. People...get some sense and get a life....
Hovis
In all instances in the Amendments, when a comma is used, a different group or reference is in place so that there is no confusion about who they were talking about. Just like the first when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I guess the right of the people to peaceably assemble means "the right of the state to peaceably assemble"....that's the libs definition or at least it would have to be since the way they are trying to rip the 2nd apart or should I say blend it together. There was no need to say that the people in the militia had the right to bear arms because that's common sense...militia has arms. The second part was to establish the fact that people have the right to bear arms. If we applied to all amendments what some want to apply to the 2nd, the constitution would be one big FUBAR.....period. Jesus...a kid with a third grade education can figure out what it means (the constitution), why...because most of the people barely had that back then and the document was meant to be simply understood by all. People...get some sense and get a life....
Hovis
M
mike in co
Guest
jackie,
it applies to the people.
but then someone invented the LAWYER and things go down hill quickly.
i, as a person, believe that scotus just put in black and white, what i have believed all the time.
the issue is that while most of us can read and understand simple english, judges and lawyers cannot.
we, the common people, must now wait for THEM to implement what most of us understand.
lawyers, doctors and insurance companies/agents should never be allowed in the same room, allowed to talk to each other or provide services to each other.
and our world would be a better place.
stepping down from my soap box, which someone has set on fire.....lol
mike in co
M
Mr. D
Guest
Some may have been confused because the D.C. Case only applies to D.C. although it sets precedent that affects all the states as we go down the road.
M
Mr. D
Guest
Don't go there because it weakens our argument!
Amendment II
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.
Using your correct understanding of grammar, it becomes very clear grammar wise that the 2nd Amendment is one continuous sentence that gives the purpose, support and reason of the last independent clause. If the Founding fathers would have been speaking "only" to an individual, private right only the part after the last comma was necessary. They were good grammarians and chose not to say that because their purposes were two:
(1.) To restrict the new federal government and standing army from abolishing the militias to protect state's rights.
(2.) To insure the Southern States particularly that a local militia was always available for insurrections and to control slave uprisings.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
RStiefel
Guest
Hope it is applied
in every state. Remember..... The District of Columbia is actually Federal Land, not state land. It is considered a Federal Enclave. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next in San Franscisco.
in every state. Remember..... The District of Columbia is actually Federal Land, not state land. It is considered a Federal Enclave. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next in San Franscisco.
M
Mr. D
Guest
It has definitely strengthened the precedent for the 2nd Amendment applying to private gun ownership which is very good. Reasonable regulation is still possible, but sweeping bans like D.C.'s can now be challenged easier.
I'm all for the court's decision, but I think it is based on politics not the Constitution language or even the history of the time period. If there is legislating from the bench, then conservative judges legislate from the bench too! This is a good example that I can very easily support. Either that, or it is the applying of the "Living Constitution Concept" to the 2nd Amendment in trying to apply the intent rather than just the words of the 2nd Amendment. Frankly, I think it is just a political decision. Even Scalia said this ruling did not prevent reasonable regulation. It just sets a precedent that wholesale bans as in D.C. can be challenged. As Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing!"
I'm all for the court's decision, but I think it is based on politics not the Constitution language or even the history of the time period. If there is legislating from the bench, then conservative judges legislate from the bench too! This is a good example that I can very easily support. Either that, or it is the applying of the "Living Constitution Concept" to the 2nd Amendment in trying to apply the intent rather than just the words of the 2nd Amendment. Frankly, I think it is just a political decision. Even Scalia said this ruling did not prevent reasonable regulation. It just sets a precedent that wholesale bans as in D.C. can be challenged. As Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing!"
G
Greg Culpepper
Guest
How did Martha Stewart get in here? Oh,..... I see.
M
Mr. D
Guest
Just my dumb sense of humor! I've heard her say that when my wife watches the show.
V
Vibe
Guest
Not only here. It seems that there may be 4 Justices with that same mistaken idea. I surely do not see how "That every man be armed" could possibly support the "States Rights/Collective Rights" issue. And yet some are willing to look past the obvious for the alleged esoteric.
I stated in another post that I also did not understand how a Right, that the SCOTUS has ruled existed "prior to the Constitution, and does not depend upon that document for it's existence", now applies only to the Federal government and whith their "apparent" blessings for the States to violate it as they see fit. Just doesn't follow logically.
Last edited by a moderator:
V
Vibe
Guest
And where exactly does "That every man be armed" fall into those goals?
It doesn't. And yet it was one of the stated reasons in the debates. Ergo your logic (as well as a couple of judges and lawyers with agendas) is just a tad bit off.
FALSE....FALSE...FALSE
The first part is the states and their militia, second is the people/individual and the third part states that neither the state or the peoples right can be infringed. What kind of grammer are you using? Like I said before, this is the only amendment that the libs want to apply that funny grammer to. The meaning of this amendment is simple and clear unless you use Bill Clinton's english of what does "is" mean.
Hovis
P
Phil Deese
Guest
Hovis............................................. .............
Your dead on!! Some statements remind me of the old saying " If you say something long enough people will start to believe it." Most politicians know that by heart!!
Your dead on!! Some statements remind me of the old saying " If you say something long enough people will start to believe it." Most politicians know that by heart!!