You are right. BUT … if it comes out that Zimmerman was in the right, they won’t admit it. At best, the story will simply fade away. I still expect to see the Feds press charges against Zimmerman for “violation of civil rights” even if he is in the right. They want a guilty verdict to justify all their actions now

Like the several well publicized shootings in just the first 3 months of this year culminating in the April 2nd mass shooting in Oakland Calif.

All just too convenient. I remember quite a few high profile shootings in the 1990s around the time of the assault weapons (ugly guns) ban. Same thing here.

Sure sounds like you are asking others to fight your battles.

Here you go Doc,

“Game Over, Atheists Lose”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXGKVii83mg&feature=plcp&context=C4803690VDvjVQa1PpcFOZF7M71ctO6qKIT7HkO6UscwkwbCmud7g=

I try to do what God demands of me.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

The dude’s got a big hat but, President Obama is a Christian and atheists as well as people of various faiths occupy both Republican and Democratic parties and conserviative and liberal persuasions.
From watching the video on your link I do not see how this speaks to my point.

Obama bin Laden is not a Christian, so stop lying about that Doc. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

So your god wants you to shoot em up, as I gather. I’m not sure he/she is a god I would want much to do with. Certainly couldn’t find him anywhere in the New Testament, but surely in the Old.

Samurai
I’m not lying.

If anyone says Obama bin Laden is a Christian, they are lying. Enough said! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

I have to agree with you strongly on this. There is a great misunderstanding of what Free Speech is in this Country – it doesn’t entitle you to utter every foul word every place just because one wants to, or one’s vocabulary is lacking or because one apparently has an inability to think and speak without using foul language –

Absolutely, When I was young & my father was in the D.C. Police He kept a loaded gun in the house & My sister & I never played with it, even though 14hours of 21 in prime time TV was westerens.

45,
Tee speaks like a person totally ignorant of the facts of life. I have been around guns from five years old and never “played” with a gun as a kid. My father taught me a respect for them. I first fired a .22 at five and went on from there. I now not only have a respect for guns, but a “love”, as well. I probably shouldn’t have said that as now she will try to make me out to be some kind of gun nut.

I got my first hands on training with firearms at age 8. 12 gauge shotgun. Bit overpowered for me. A 410 would have been a MUCH better choice. Hated shotguns for years till I went skeet shooting with friends and they talked me into trying it again. It doesn’t kick anywhere near as hard as I remember

As for firearm safety I can’t tell you when cause I was so young that age had no meaning. It was defiantly well before I was 8. The single most important rule I remember and it still is the one rule that if you NEVER break you will not shoot someone by accident. And I do mean NEVER. You could break every other safety rule and if you never break this one you will never shoot someone or thing that you don’t intend to.

The single rule? Never point the muzzle at anything you don’t want to shoot.

Steve:

Exactly. We did the same. In fact, in that area of Arkansas (Ozark Mountains) (yes, I was a hillbilly) kids of five knew how to load and aim a gun. Most had their first gun (a .22) by the time they were six.

We had a neighbor about ten years ago that had a pit bull that started killing everything he could get his teeth into. He killed pets, etc. and was barely headed off when he tried to attack a toddler. We had several cats that the dog kept killing (mostly kittens). I saw his master throw a dead cat into the back of his pickup to haul off. I walked out and said, “My kids (who were about 14/15) don’t like their pets being killed by your dog.” He bragged, “My dog is a hunting dog. He doesn’t know any better.” So I said, “Yes, I understand. He thinks it’s okay. But my kids don’t. They have a .22 leaning up against the door in the front and the back watching for your dog to get into our yard again. And if he does, I don’t think he’s going to get out again.”

Thirty minutes later he was building a pen for his dog.

45,
now THAT is something that pisses me off! A stupid humanbeing getting a good dog into trouble. That guy should have been taken out and horse whipped!!! There is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners!!

Wildfire460, thanks so much for your excellent comment. I loved reading it, and you place the blame, and the solution, squarely where it belongs — with the parents, not other organizations or the government.

WILDFIRE460,
I’m 61 years old, have a perfect driving record, and I agree with you on everything but the coffee. I drink coffee while i drive but I carry it in a travel mug, put a couple of ice cubes in it to cool it, and only take drinks of it when there is not a car near me. I have never had an accident, not even a parking ticket. the biggest part of the problem lies in the lack of judgement! The lack of it is in taking a sip of the coffee when there is a car right next to you and you drift into their lane doing it. It is in taking a sip, spilling super hot coffee in your lap, thus swerving all over the place. It’s all in how the person does something that makes it dangerous. to give you an example, I have four vehicles and my wife and I pay under 500.00 a year in insurance. two of thse vehicles are less than five years old.

Amen and AMEN!

As best I can tell, parents aren’t doing a very good job of it – quite a few shot dead today.

WHOA there boy!!! Your beginning to sound a lot like me. Congrats!!!

Love that one, thanks.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

I thought Hemingway was an ambulance driver and journalist in various conflicts. I don’t thing he fought.

it should read “…think he fought.”

Doc:

Hemingway was given the rank of general in several conflicts, particularly one in China. They don’t give that rank to ambulance drivers. He definately fought at nearly all ranks at one time or another. Besides, ambulance drivers were generally local … those didn’t need to know how to fight, they only needed to know how to drive. I think your information was wrong.

45c
Here is my information:
From http://www.ernest.hemingway.com/journeystowar.htm
“With regard to timing, war was one of the areas in which history accomodated Hemingway-his lifetime spanned four major wars, three of which he saw close-up, though never as a soldier, and he often embroidered his war experiences for presentation to the home audience to make them look as “soldierly” as he possibly could.”
And; “The war was an ocean away, and the domestic attitude toward it was shaped by patriotic songs, jingoistic slogans and romantic stories of faraway Europe. Nineteen year-old Ernest Hemingway wasted no time in creating the image for the folks back home of himself as Warrior.”
And; “In what must have been a particularly galling moment for him, Hemingway, at the risk of losing his reporter’s credentials and being expelled from France, had to appear before a military panel and deny ever having taken part in any actual fighting himself.”

Another view.
http://www.lostgeneration.com/keywest.htm

Truth be told, castaway, you could indeed buy any gun, anywhere, any time, and carry it wherever you chose, in any way you chose. It is your right to do so. And any legal troubles that might arise from you exercising that right can be overcome.

It all boils down to who wants to make the fight. I can get the gun laws of Illinois overturned if I don’t mind spending several years in jail and spending a small fortune in legal fees. Their laws can’t hold up to Constitutional scrutiny. They would be defeated in the end. But it has to go to trial, then to appeals, then to who knows what court until it makes it to the state level supreme court, etc., until it finally makes it to the Supreme Court of the United States. Assuming that they’ll hear the case, your conviction would be overturned.

So you can fight the establishment. But it’s expensive and time consuming, and they are counting on the fact that they have the force of arms and the power of inconvenience and bottomless resources. You have no gun, have to sit in jail, and have to go bankrupt … just to exercise the right that should already be protected.

And when it’s all over, you won’t be able to sue anyone, because they are all exempt from civil action.

Or you could approach the matter administratively, before an issue ever arose….and get the federal corporation to admit they can’t regulate you. It’s not a walk in the park, but it’s a lot easier than the method you just described. And if you do it right, there’s no risk of jail time. If I were you, I’d visit teamlaw.org and poke around a bit, especially their forum.

There have been several 2nd amendment cases taken all the way to SCOTUS. Expensive yes but all you need is standing. You don’t have to break the law (civial disobedience) but you do have to be materially affected. That is what happened in the Heller case and in the Mac Donald case.

The Heller case established that the 2nd covers an INDIVIDUAL personal right.
The MacDonald case established that the 2nd is enforceable against the states.

So now all we have to do is get SCOTUS to establish the definitions of “Shall”, “not”, “be” and “infringe(d)”.

Alex:

“As for the rest, the judge was off in one small matter. It’s not the wording or restrictions of the law that were a second amendment problem. It’s the existence of the law in the first place. That right is to be uninfringed.”

You are quite correct. However the judges always fail to point that part out. I think they are hoping they can encourage the politicians to try again.

That’s what I meant. Thanks. Did you see a link anywhere? I thought Brasschecktv.com had one but I couldn’t find it.

Startpage.com is your friend. I found 11,000+ refrences to the purchase.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247765_1_atk-rounds-bullet

You are mistaken, TAlon’s Point. The Founders never believed that. Our Constitution wasn’t even interpreted that way until after the 14th Amendment was ratified, after the Civil War.

On the contrary Jazzabelle. It was recognized early on that the federal government has a role in as much as it must assure protection of the God given rights expressed in the Constitution as John Adams so eloquently reminded us “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”

While is was clear the federal government was given few powers and rightly so, it’s primary power was specifically to protect those rights from attack without and within, including from states determined to strip you of those rights.

Sadly, under your contention a state could violate your constitutional rights and it would not be anyone’s business. You are unknowingly arguing for the justification of the days of slavery of blacks and second class citizenship of women. The very principle of individual rights demands necessary action to protect or restore them, including federal action if required.

Do not confuse this with what is happening now, ie the federal government injecting itself into every action of states and their respective citizens.

Hope this helps.

Jazzabelle If the feds can make freedom of speach or “seperation of church and state” apply to the states they can make any part of the bill of rights apply to them.

Yes, Adams and the rest of the Founders believed that rights were God-given; that doesn’t prove your point. The Constitution created a federal government and that government’s role was to govern itself, not the states or the people unless the Constitution explicitly granted that power.

Talon’s Point wrote: “While is was clear the federal government was given few powers and rightly so, it’s primary power was specifically to protect those rights from attack without and within, including from states determined to strip you of those rights.”

That is simply incorrect. First of all, legislative intent is the principle that if the legislature considered certain language and then voted against it, their intent was obviously that such meaning be excluded from the meaning of the law. Consider some of Madison’s proposed language for the Bill of Rights that would have specifically applied them to the states, and the fact that Congress rejected his language in favor of language that, just like the rest of the Constitution, only applied to the federal government. It might also be illustrative for you to compare the Supreme Court cases Barron v. Baltimore (pre-14th Amendment) to Gitlow v. New York (post-14th Amendment).

Talon’s Point wrote: “Sadly, under your contention a state could violate your constitutional rights and it would not be anyone’s business. You are unknowingly arguing for the justification of the days of slavery of blacks and second class citizenship of women. The very principle of individual rights demands necessary action to protect or restore them, including federal action if required.”

No, nothing about the principle of individual rights demands that the federal government (or any government) do anything at all. That’s why we have the government that we have: because some governments trample those rights, and our Founders didn’t want ours to do so. But at the same time, our Founders recognized that the federal government they had created couldn’t be trusted any more than any other government. So they limited its role to governing itself, leaving the states and people to govern themselves.

It doesn’t help your argument to make an issue of slavery, since the Constitution originally spoke about slavery in specific terms, protecting its legality at the federal level. Therefore the whole issue is irrelevant to the point you are making. As for women, there was never anything in the Constitution that prohibited them from voting. A worthwhile question to ask yourself would be, “If it wasn’t possible for people to change state laws against female suffrage, how were they able to pass a federal Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women’s right to vote?” Don’t the same people (state legislators) vote on both sets of laws (state laws and proposed Constitutional amendments)? (Yes.)

You massively overstate your case when you say, “Sadly, under your contention a state could violate your constitutional rights and it would not be anyone’s business.” Of course it would be someone’s business. It would be my business and the business of everyone who lives in my state. And if we want to get things changed, all we need to do is raise awareness within our state (not the whole country), and we only need to drive a few hours to our state capitol to talk to our politicians, instead of caravaning 20 hours to Washington, D.C. to lobby people who couldn’t care less about the people in some other state that they don’t even represent. Change is easier–and cheaper–at the state level, which keeps more power in the hands of regular people. That’s how our Founders designed it.

Also, you give away your true assumptions when you talk about a state violating my “constitutional rights.” There’s no such thing as Constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t have the capacity to give rights, take rights away, or transfer rights from one party to another. All the Constitution does is require the federal government to stay out of my way as I exercise my God-given rights. In other words, the Constitution guarantees me that the federal government must protect my God-given rights–from whom or what? From the federal government. That’s all. Everything else is left to the states and the people.

Dennis48e wrote: “Jazzabelle If the feds can make freedom of speach or “seperation of church and state” apply to the states they can make any part of the bill of rights apply to them.”

That’s right; and they can do that now, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Tellingly, both of your examples (freedom of speech and “separation of church and state”) were accepted to only apply to the federal government before the Civil War. States commonly instituted state religions and banned certain types of literature before the 14th Amendment was ratified. That was accepted back then because people actually understood the Constitution.

Dear God Jazz. You are arguing in circles. You are clearly proposing the the federal government was created as a group of state yet has no impact upon those states. Don’t come whining to the internet or anywhere outside of your state should your gun rights or free speech be under assault by your state government. I neither want to hear it nor will you have a moral right to complain.

ugh

How am I arguing in circles, Talon’s Point? I made a straight-forward argument for the original meaning of our Constitution, the same argument our Founders made. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s circular.

Talon’s Point wrote: “You are clearly proposing the the federal government was created as a group of state yet has no impact upon those states.”

That is a bizarre exaggeration. I said no such thing. Obviously, the federal government has a role and a purpose, or else the Constitution would never have been written. Why don’t you go read it and find out for yourself what the federal government’s role and purpose is?

“Don’t come whining to the internet or anywhere outside of your state should your gun rights or free speech be under assault by your state government. I neither want to hear it nor will you have a moral right to complain.”

Aside from the whining issue (I try not to whine regardless of circumstances), you’re being rather harsh. Why would you deny me the same forms of redress you enjoy under the 14th Amendment? I didn’t say I disagreed with that amendment or the federal level of protection it confers. I only made a historical point about the original meaning of our Constitution and how it changed as a result of the 14th Amendment. You seem to be taking this conversation very, very personally for some reason.

Who is going to protect to walk down the street without the fear of a deranged madman carrying a gun shooting me. How many of these bloggers have their heads screwed on straight – It worries me a lot and look what happened in Oakland today.

Jizz. I take personal insults “Go read the Constitution yourself” as a badge of honor. I have read it. Your contentions are circular because you want to claim rights of the individual that cannot be protected by the individual except in coordination with other individuals in the form of armed insurrection as a singular recourse based on your view of the Constitution.

Again, under your contention, if a state thwarts the constitutional rights of an individual the other state, in the form of the federal government, have zero say to protect constitutional rights of a fellow citizen of the U.S. If so, SCOTUS was created for little more than addressing commerce between states and certainly cannot rule on any matter of individual rights as it would usurp the authority of the sate.

So again, if you find yourself having your rights taken away, intellectual honesty demands you not raise the issue in a forum such as this as it would violate a simple principle of keeping it within your state. Certainly do not file any legal appeals beyond your state Supreme Court. Your only recourse under your own interpretation is to take up arms (good luck with that.)

You contend that all you have to do if faced with the usurpation of your rights at the state level is take a little jaunt to your state capitol, really? And what when that doesn’t work? Accept your chains instead of calling on fellow American. Good luck with that as well.

Let’s look at the Bill of Rights in particular to see what we can of Talon’s and Jazzabelle’s points.

The First Amendment says “CONGRESS shall make no law……..”
So clearly the First Amendment was only to limit Congress.

The 2nd Amendment says The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No limits on what government entity it would be restricting. Read the others 3-8 all have the same lack of restriction on what government entity it restricts. Thus it is restricting all government, Federal, State, Local.

Let’s look at the 10th amendment
“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.”
Most people think that the prohibitions to the states are just article 1 section 10 and with good reason since article 1 section 10 is labeled “Powers prohibited of States”.

However the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the writing of the Constitution Article 1 section 10. They are amendments after all.

So clearly the founders intended that 2-8 restrict ALL government.

Amendment 9 reaffirms that there are MANY MANY rights belonging to the people (not states, PEOPLE) and that a few of the rights were listed in the Bill of Rights did not mean that there were no other.

10 Reaffirms that states AND people have powers and that SOME powers were forbidden to states even if people wanted to give states those powers. This is why states do not have the power to coin money (article 1 section 10) and do not have the power to deny you a speedy and public trial (6th amendment).

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

absolutely amazed says:

Who is going to protect to walk down the street without the fear of a deranged madman carrying a gun shooting me. How many of these bloggers have their heads screwed on straight – It worries me a lot and look what happened in Oakland today.

Obviously neither the police nor the law will protect you. Prima Facie evidence in your very specific worry. What happened in Oakland today happened in a town in a state where open carry is illegal. Concealed carry is only with a permit which is nearly impossible to get. On a campus which is by federal law a gun free zone.

SO who is going to protect you? You better. And you better find a legal way to let all those law abiding citizens around you carry too. Never can tell when a deranged madman might try and shoot you. If you are surrounded by unarmed people and are unarmed yourself then NO ONE is going to save you. Well God might but you may not believe in God.

A little reminder from a survivor of a mass shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
Gun Free Zones KILL people.

Talon’s Point wrote: “Your contentions are circular because you want to claim rights of the individual that cannot be protected by the individual except in coordination with other individuals in the form of armed insurrection as a singular recourse based on your view of the Constitution.”

I have never said that, and I don’t believe in armed insurrection. There’s nothing to insurrect against, anyway. You ought to stop putting words in people’s mouths, Talon’s Point; this site is full of conspiracy hacks, and they’ll start assuming that you’re an Alinsky disciple or a federal plant if you start accusing people of believing in “armed insurrection as a singular recourse” when that hasn’t been any part of the conversation up to this point.

You say you’ve read the Constitution? I can’t tell. When I suggest you read it, I really don’t care if you take it as an insult or a badge of honor. It wasn’t inteded to be either one. It was simply a suggestion based on your obvious lack of understanding of it. If you don’t want people to think that you haven’t read the Constitution, you’ll have to display a better understanding of it, and then people won’t have any reason to think that. It’s true that educated people can have a difference of opinion regarding what any document means, but the key word there is “educated.” Your comment suggested that if protecting individuals’ rights (including from the states) wasn’t the purpose of the federal government, then the federal government couldn’t possibly have any legitimate effect on the states. In that context, it was quite rational to suggest that you go read the Constitution to see what the federal government’s role vis-a-vis the states was designed to be.

Talon’s Point wrote: “Again, under your contention, if a state thwarts the constitutional rights of an individual the other state, in the form of the federal government, have zero say to protect constitutional rights of a fellow citizen of the U.S. If so, SCOTUS was created for little more than addressing commerce between states and certainly cannot rule on any matter of individual rights as it would usurp the authority of the sate.”

First, the federal government isn’t a state, as the word “state” is used in the Constitution. Some definitions of “state” would include the American Republic, but we are talking about the Constitution, so we need to remember that the Constitution was written to create a government of which existing states were to be members; the federal government that was created by the Constitution was NOT intended to be an equal “member” of itself. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, you claim, “under your contention, if a state thwarts the constitutional rights of an individual the other state, in the form of the federal government, have zero say to protect constitutional rights of a fellow citizen of the U.S.” Yes, that was true when the Constitution was written. As I’ve had to remind you several times now, the 14th Amendment changed that. (Exceptions, of course, would be any individual rights that were specifically mentioned in the Constitution; obviously, those would have fallen under the authority of the federal government to protect, but most individual rights weren’t (and still aren’t) specifically mentioned in the Constitution.) As for the Supreme Court, yes, “SCOTUS was created for little more than addressing commerce between states.” That part of your sentence is absolutely accurate. You do, however, go a little overboard when you finish with, “and certainly cannot rule on any matter of individual rights as it would usurp the authority of the s[t]ate.” Again, that was the original situation, which no longer applies. Your sentence would be correct if it were recast in the past tense.

Talon’s Point wrote: “So again, if you find yourself having your rights taken away, intellectual honesty demands you not raise the issue in a forum such as this as it would violate a simple principle of keeping it within your state.”

I don’t accept the rest of your arguments and assumptions in this thread, but even if I did, your statement that I just quoted would only hold true if my state passed a law against discussing the denial of rights on an Internet site that might be read by people outside the state. Since my state has not passed such a law, your statement is meaningless, quite on top of the prior issue that the 14th Amendment made it unlawful for any state to pass such a law. You keep forgetting that this is a historical issue, don’t you?

Talon’s Point wrote: “Certainly do not file any legal appeals beyond your state Supreme Court.”

If I lived before the 14th Amendment was ratified, I wouldn’t. Not only that, I wouldn’t have been ABLE to.

Talon’s Point wrote: “Your only recourse under your own interpretation is to take up arms (good luck with that.)”

Now, this is just a gross failure of imagination, Talon’s Point. You SERIOUSLY can’t think of any other recourse (even under the interpretation that you impute to me, which I have never claimed or even addressed)? That’s got to be embarassing for you, but I guess some people are quicker than others to assume that violence is necessary.. *shrug*

Talon’s Point wrote: “You contend that all you have to do if faced with the usurpation of your rights at the state level is take a little jaunt to your state capitol, really? And what when that doesn’t work? Accept your chains instead of calling on fellow American. Good luck with that as well.”

More irrelevancy. More putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say. More utter lack of imagination in finding real solutions. You don’t really want to be having this conversation, do you?

Jazz says “I have never said that, and I don’t believe in armed insurrection. ” Oh but that is its logical conclusion thus your circular argument. If fellow citizens cannot come to your aid via federal court that IS your singular option (.)

Jazz says “Talon’s Point; this site is full of conspiracy hacks, and they’ll start assuming that you’re an Alinsky disciple or a federal plant if you start accusing people of believing in “armed insurrection as a singular recourse” when that hasn’t been any part of the conversation up to this point.”

I could care less what conclusion of my comments one makes or intends to infer. They stand on their merits. You want to make arguments without having the reader take them to their logical conclusion. Maybe that works with most. Not I

Jazz says “I don’t accept the rest of your arguments and assumptions in this thread,” So? You continue to argue that each state is utterly sovereign without admitting it. Again under your contention your liberty is ultimately at the discretion of the majority in your state. That is democracy not a republic. You argue you can just run down to the state capitol and correct it. With what? Logic? Thus pitchforks is the reasonable conclusion.
You say I am not using imagination http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog whatever that is. Fact is either you have a solution or you don’t. If you have one express it. Otherwise your only solution is those proverbial pitchforks and your frustrated that I am pointing out what you don’t want to openly admit.

There is a reason we a republic of states. One of those reasons is so we have group remedies to address local tyranny though is creates the risks of national tyranny we are now observing. I know you don’t think so. I’ll put it in simple terms as follows:

If your state decided citizens who came here from Iran posed a sufficient threat that they be disarmed and rounded up, under your contention, those citizen have no right of due process beyond their state’s remedies in an environment where the state has already determined those remedies do not apply to this group. Under your logic (being polite) there is nothing the fellow citizens of the remaining 49 states (56 if you’re Obama) can do to restore their rights. In essence if the Iranian’s cannot defend themselves (thus the natural conclusion of force as your singular option) then they are screwed. “Turn off the cameras, move on, there is no story here folks.”

Now translate Iranian to NRA gun owner.

Again, if a state determines to usurp your rights you, under your own reasoning, have two options (i once said one) 1) accept it, 2) use force. Note: My examples have always presupposed the exhaustion of polite remedies. You want to avoid the logical conclusion by inferring there are polite remedies.

So, of the two of us only one of us actually recognizes peaceful remedies and that person is me.

Feel free to have that last word and a nice day.

Vicki wrote: “Let’s look at the Bill of Rights in particular to see what we can of Talon’s and Jazzabelle’s points. The First Amendment says “CONGRESS shall make no law……..”
So clearly the First Amendment was only to limit Congress.”

So far, you are correct, Vicki.

Vicki wrote: “The 2nd Amendment says The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

The Second Amendment has a fascinating legislative history, and you haven’t done it justice. It would be fun to explain it all to you, but it would be pretty far afield from the point you’re trying to make, so I’ll restrain myself. I’ll just say that the Second Amendment is in the middle of a more complex relationship between state and federal governments than the other amendments are, so we really can’t extrapolate from the Second Amendment to the others.

Vicki wrote: “No limits on what government entity it would be restricting. Read the others 3-8 all have the same lack of restriction on what government entity it restricts. Thus it is restricting all government, Federal, State, Local.”

This is a mistake that may have been engendered by Talon’s Point’s insistence on treating the historical issue under discussion as a current legal issue. Right now, the rights mentioned in the amendments to the Constitution are applicable against the states due to an interpretive doctrine called “incorporationism,” which arose as a result of the 14th Amendment. You may have learned about this in a civics or government class.

However, when the Constitution was written and ratified, there was no 14th Amendment. This thread is really about the original meaning of the Constitution. To help clarify that matter, remind yourself what the Constitution is. It is a contract between the states. Does a contract have the ability to compel behavior outside its scope? No; how could it? Here’s an example: let’s say that you and I agree that I will buy a piece of real estate from you. So you and I sign a sale agreement, which is a contract. It specifies that the Act of Sale will be handled by a particular title company, but before that happens, the property and my earnest money will be held in trust by an escrow company, during which time there will be an appraisal of the property and title research will be performed, and perhaps various other things. This is pretty typical of a real estate transaction. Now, in this case, the various companies that we hire to carry out these contracted tasks will be established companies that you and I don’t need to create in order to carry out our contract. The Constitution was a little bit different because it actually needed to create an entity–the federal government–in order to implement its terms. But in other respects, the Constitution was a lot like our real estate contract: the contract is between the two of us (or between the several states), and both contracts require us (or the states) to create or hire separate entities in order to carry out the terms of the contracts. Now, what would happen if we went to get the appraisal done, in accordance with the terms of our real estate contract, and the appraisal company rep showed up and said, “Well, the property is worth $200,000. And by the way, it’s illegal for you to plant tomatoes anywhere on this property once you buy it. Vicki, we’re taking your son, since he happens to be here, and we’re going to send him off to fight some meaningless war in a foreign country. Oh, and all of you had better start using fluourescent light bulbs immediately. If I hear that you’ve bought or used incandescent light bulbs, I’ll have a SWAT team sent to your house, and you’ll be sorry. So don’t even make me raise the issue.”

We’d laugh at that imbecile, right? Tomatoes, warfare, and light bulbs have absolutely nothing to do with our private contract, and they are completely outside the authority of the contract to compel from either one of us. The appraisal company is our agency, hired to carry out our contract, and it doesn’t have any authority to perform any action or make any requirement of either one of us unless that is expressly stated (either in our contract with each other or in our service contract with the appraisal company). The same limitation applies to the federal government; it can’t do anything outside the scope of the contract that created it. It certainly can’t go making up additional terms for the contract and dictating them to the parties (the states) that created the contract.

But, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution now, so there IS some authority for the federal government there, right? Let’s look at the wording, as you suggested. Aside from the religion part of the First Amendment, which begins “Congress shall make no law…” , the amendments don’t make any mention of which levels of government are affected by them. Does this mean that they bind the parties to the contract (the states)? There is a parallel in a real estate contract: usually the contract will have some sort of escape clause if the appraisal turns out wildly different from the agreed-upon sale price. For example, if I agreed to pay $240,000 for your property, but the appraisal came in at $200,000, I might be able to cancel the contract based on language like, “If the appraised value is more than 5% of the contracted price different from the contracted price, this Agreement may be terminated without penalty.” Notice that (in this example) the contract doesn’t say WHO has the power to terminate the agreement. Could it be argued that the appraisal company rep has the power to terminate the agreement, even if both you and I wanted to proceed regardless? No, that would be silly. You and I have a contract; we can sue each other to enforce it or to try and get out of it, but the appraisal company has no role in that process. It is merely our agent and has to do what we tell it to (subject to the terms of our contracts). It worked exactly the same way with our federal Constitution before the 14th Amendment was rafitied. The states had a contract between them; the federal government was simply their agency to fulfill the contract. It had no role to enforce the contract between the states, except where the contract explicitly authorized the agency (the federal government) to do so. (Interestingly, state governments work pretty much the same way. State constitutions are contracts among the inidividual people of the state, and the state government is the agency created by the state constitution for the purpose of fulfilling the contract among the people. It’s interesting to note that “the people” are NOT parties to the federal Constitution; the states are.)

So, having that context, let’s return to your statement: “No limits on what government entity it would be restricting. Read the others 3-8 all have the same lack of restriction on what government entity it restricts. Thus it is restricting all government, Federal, State, Local.”

By now, you probably realize that you’ve asked the wrong question by talking about which governments are “restricted” by the amendments. The real question is what is “allowed” to the federal government, not what an entity is “restricted” from. In a contract, all parties and their agencies are automatically restricted from exercising any power over the others that isn’t authorized by the contract. (Refer to our activist appraisal company for the example.) The pro-Constitution “Federalists” were against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution; not because they didn’t believe in those rights, but because they knew that, legally speaking, the amendments weren’t necessary. How could the federal government possibly regulate citizen speech when that authority hadn’t been given to the federal government in the contract (the Constitution)? It couldn’t; therefore, why bother to state it explicitly? But, desipte that logic, some people (and states) were uncomfortable creating a government that WASN’T specifically restrained in those ways, so they insisted on creating an explicit bill of rights that would ensure that the federal government couldn’t trample on the rights of individuals or states. As you correctly pointed out, “Amendment 9 reaffirms that there are MANY MANY rights belonging to the people (not states, PEOPLE) and that a few of the rights were listed in the Bill of Rights did not mean that there were no other.” This was necessary to state so that nobody could make the assumption that, if the Founders had intended a certain right to be protected, they would have mentioned it.

Let’s look at a corollary of your statement. It’s a fact that the amendments, at the time they were ratified, applied only against the federal government. But does that mean that states could regulate speech, restrict the right of self-defense, etc? No, it doesn’t; remember, in a contract, all parties and their agencies are automatically restricted from exercising ANY power over the others that isn’t authorized by the contract. Do the people of a state have a contract? (Yes, the state constitution.) Does a state constitution give the state the power to trample on individuals’ rights? (No, it can’t; a contract doesn’t have the legal capacity to transfer rights from one party to another without the specific consent of that party; therefore, like the federal Constitution, state constitutions were written to govern the governments they created, not the people.) So, could it be lawful for a state to violate one of the rights listed in the federal Bill of Rights? (No, a state cannot lawfully do so; but not because the rights are listed in the federal Constitution; rather, a state cannot lawfully violate them because they are inherent in the people; they existed before the federal Constitution and before all the state constitutions; the Founders believed those rights were given by God, not any level of government, and it is beyond the lawful capacity of government to violate them, even if there is technically a “law” on the books somewhere authorizing some government to do so; such a law is prima facie invalid and unenforceable. These are things that were so obvious to our Founders, and they took them so much for granted, that it didn’t even occur to them to write them in the constitutions they created. Sadly, we have lost this belief in our day, and now people cling to their “Constitutional rights” as if the Constitution were the actual source of their rights and if something happened to the Constitution, those rights could be lost.)

You went on to quote the Tenth Amendment, “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.” Are you beginning to see how this wording backs up my point?

Vicki wrote: “[The Tenth Amendment] Reaffirms that states AND people have powers and that SOME powers were forbidden to states even if people wanted to give states those powers. This is why states do not have the power to coin money (article 1 section 10) and do not have the power to deny you a speedy and public trial (6th amendment).”

You’re close; very close. Yes, some powers are forbidden to states even if people wanted to give states those powers. But not because they are enumerated in the federal Constitution. Those powers are forbidden to the states because ALL government authority comes from the people. The government cannot do anything, cannot acquire the ability to do anything, that the individual people cannot do. And the individual people do not have the authority to trample on each other’s God-given rights. THAT is the reason that no level of government can lawfully get the authority to do it.

As far as your examples go, coining money was a power that the states agreed to give up and delegate to the federal government. The people had already delegated that power to the states, and the states agreed (in their contract with each other) to further delegate that power to the federal government and cease performing it themselves. But the trial issue is different. You are talking about incorporationism again, which is based on the 14th Amendment.

Talon’s Point, you might want to read my answer to Vicki in this thread. It might clear up a lot of your confusion.

You wrote:
“Jazz says “I have never said that, and I don’t believe in armed insurrection. ” Oh but that is its logical conclusion thus your circular argument. If fellow citizens cannot come to your aid via federal court that IS your singular option (.)”

Calling that a “logical conclusion” is a bit of a stretch. Why would you call something a “logical conclusion” if it resulted in a “circular argument?” Because it’s YOUR conclusion and you’re trying to impute it to me? You’re arguing with a straw man; I don’t know if you realize that or not.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, “fellow citizens” CAN and DO come to people’s aid via federal court. They gained that ability with the 14th Amendment. How many times do I need to say it? LOL.

You wrote:
“Jazz says “I don’t accept the rest of your arguments and assumptions in this thread,” So? You continue to argue that each state is utterly sovereign without admitting it.”

No, Talon’s Point, the states are not sovereign, and I have never argued that they are. They gave up any pretence at sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution. The PEOPLE are sovereign. (See Chisholm v. Georgia) You seem to have been exposed to some of the weird patriot myths regarding sovereignty and other things, and you seem to assume that I believe in all of these strange ideas. I don’t know why you would think that when I’ve never argued for any of them. Broaden your horizons a little, Talon’s Point. Read some *actual* law, not the regurgitated fallacies and lies of people who are trying to get your money.

As I told you before, the federal government has a distinct role vis-a-vis the states. I recommended that you read the Constitution to figure out what it was. Apparently you did not heed my recommendation. That’s your choice, but right now I’m too bored with your willful ignorance to bother holding your hand through an explanation of what’s in the Constitution. Either read it or don’t, it’s up to you. If you want to know what sovereignty means, go read my response to Vicki in this thread. Although I didn’t use the word “sovereignty,” I described it so that the average person could understand how it applies in American law. I guess we will see if you’re as smart as the average person (if you bother to read it).

You wrote:
“Again under your contention your liberty is ultimately at the discretion of the majority in your state. That is democracy not a republic.”

No, I have never said that, and I don’t believe it. You’re right, that would be a democracy, which isn’t our form of government. As I said above, your confusion about what I believe on this point would be best addressed by reading my reply to Vicki.

You wrote:
“You argue you can just run down to the tate capitol and correct it. With what? Logic? Thus pitchforks is the reasonable conclusion. You say I am not using imagination http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog whatever that is. Fact is either you have a solution or you don’t. If you have one express it. Otherwise your only solution is those proverbial pitchforks and your frustrated that I am pointing out what you don’t want to openly admit.”

This is getting funny. You want me to think of solutions for you? Here are some:
1. Give up all your government-issued licenses and fulfill (and thus exit) all your contracts with the government. It’s not really the government, anyway. You’ve traded your God-given rights for privileges that also give the state the contractual power to strip you of a large number of rights that you would otherwise retain. The vast majority of “injustice,” whether federal, state, or local, is performed with the contractual permission of the victim. That’s why the victim is often legally unable to sue for redress. Take yourself out of that category, and you will solve lots of injustice before it happens.
2. If it happens anyway, it’s unlawful. The terms of a contract can’t be enforced against someone who hasn’t signed the contract, and if a government agent tries to do so, he has broken the law. You don’t have to bear the expense of suing the agency; it’s possible to just go after the individual perpetrator with a quo warranto action.
3. In order to do #1 and #2 correctly, you will have to know something about the law. You can’t make a coherent argument in court if you’ve never bothered to learn anything about how the law works. So, make a focused study of whatever legal topic is at hand for you; make sure you’re doing things correctly; and then expect to win. It’s people who don’t understand the law who are always screaming about the government doing illegal things. Truly unlawful activity on the part of the government is actually quite rare; the problem is people who don’t know the situation at hand and start thinking that the injustice they see could happen to them; but then they STILL don’t study the law to find out whether that’s true or how to prevent it. Preventing it is pretty simple, conceptually. Teach yourself how. And while you’re at it, learn what to do if your prevention doesn’t work. That requires a basic working knowledge of the law. I recommend teamlaw.org as a good place to start.
4. If you’re too lazy to learn anything about the law, but you have money, you can hire an attorney to sue the perpetrators and the agencies that employ them. It’s not as effective as doing it yourself, and you have to operate within the corporate-governmental system which is the source of most of the injustice to begin with, but you could always try. This option would include suing up through the federal courts, as allowed by the 14th Amendment. (Did I mention that people have that option, now that the 14th Amendment has been ratified?)
5. If you’re too lazy to learn anything about the law, but you want results anyway, talk to people. Win in the court of popular opinion. Eventually that will translate into changed laws. You might have to wait awhile, but hey, you chose this route.
6. If you’re too lazy to learn anything about law and you’re too lazy to talk to people, but you still want to have the warm, fuzzy feeling that you’re doing something about the world’s problems, write letters to your representatives. Oh, and vote.

I could probably think of a few more, but those should keep you busy for awhile. Of course, if you followed these suggestions, you’d have to find a parking spot for your pitchfork, and I know you’ve been itching to use it all day. Well, there are pros and cons to everything.

You wrote:
“If your state decided citizens who came here from Iran posed a sufficient threat ….”

Read my reply to Vicki.

You wrote:
“Now translate Iranian to NRA gun owner.”

Read my reply to Vicki.

You wrote:
“Again, if a state determines to usurp your rights you, under your own reasoning, have two options (i once said one) 1) accept it, 2) use force. Note: My examples have always presupposed the exhaustion of polite remedies. You want to avoid the logical conclusion by inferring there are polite remedies.”

Obviously there are polite remedies. I just listed several. Are you trying to deny that polite remedies exist? Your paragraph doesn’t even make sense. Are you sure you’re using the word “inferring” correctly?

If we can agree that polite remedies exist, then obviously you need to exhaust them before resorting to your preferred method of insurrection (pitchforks?). But even in the modern world, with our 14th Amendment and federal courts, it’s still possible to exhaust the available “polite remedies.” I don’t see how having access to federal courts will prevent violence from people who are determined to have it. Maybe that’s why you’ve been going on about pitchforks all day?

As a LEO I know of told a perp with a 22, “If you shoot me with that thing, and I find out about it…”

A first class case of self defense in Oakland today – he got seven of them straight away, dead instantaneously, but three survived. I’m sure they looked at him in a weird way, a real threat to be sure. Had he gone to target practice, or used hollow points, or used his AK47 instead, he’d finished them all off, I’m sure.

absolutely amazed your bias is showing.

Reader says:

On a side note: The Supreme Court cannot restrict to a baseball bat, as ‘keep and bear arms’ has always, and still does, define guns.

The arms in “keep and bear arms are NOT just guns. Swords, knives, bayonets (a kind of knife), clubs (a baseball bat would be a kind of club), and every other terrible implement of the soldier is what the founders meant. They even said so.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. ”

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html