joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Justice Stevens is rewriting history. I'm sorry, but I've looked into this six ways from Sunday. He is just plain and simply wrong.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ~Richard Henry Lee
The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin
The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself ~George Washington
State Supreme Counts have made the same interpretation...
To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. ~Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff. ~Michigan Supreme Court, 1922
The Senate as well...
the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982
And SCOTUS in Heller...
The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation
It is simply inconceivable for anyone to argue that the Founders, who believed an armed populace to be the best guarantor against tyrannical government, intended to leave an individual's right to keep and bear arms up to the whim of state governments that could take it away with the mere flourish of a pen.
K.
Always coming in with the NRA talking points, Kirata. Don't you have any original material that you thought up? Just because you don't like it and/or doesn't agree with you, DOESNT make it untrue. The "Heller vs. D.C." was a dumb decision on the part of the conservative justices. They did something they were not allowed to do....an end-run-around-the 2nd's definition. The only people that can change the definition of the meaning of ANYTHING in the US Constitution resides with Congress (as per Article 5).The ONLY way the Heller Case could work, is if one blanks the first half of the 2nd amendment. Sorry, but last I checked the US Supreme Court Justices can not ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with.
Maybe you can point out to me where in either the US Constitution, or Federalist Paper #46, Paragraph 9, it states the following example: A musket used to hunt a duck is protected under then 2nd amendment. You know why you wont find it? Because shooting ducks with ANY firearm was not protected under the 2nd amendment! 'Hunting' with an arm was NOT a protection the 2nd allowed. Only those arms used directly in conjunction with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." would be protected. A target pistol, hunting rifle, or even a pistol for individual self defense, is NOT protected under the 2nd, UNLESS, you can show its directly used in duties for "A well regulated militia...". Those weapons and their usage would fall under the 10th amendment.
Don't get me wrong. I feel self defense is very important. A firearm is by all means, a good tool to use in such a self defense plan. An that there should be a Constitutional amendment (i.e. the 28th) that allows self defense arms to be used to protect one's liberties and freedoms. I could be talked into something like that. It would need a few things added to it, so that most Americans, in the political sphere known as America would have a prayer of passing. There would be some 'give and take'. Not everyone will get everything they want; and maybe that's a good thing for this nation.
PS: The Senate dialogue was produced by a Republican that took campaign contributions from the NRA and firearm groups. Don't you think that makes him just...alittle....corrupted? Nay....it defends your point, so naturally you'll overlook it....
|
RE: Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread