Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: The Second Amendment Comes Before the Supreme Court: The Issues and the Arguments. Nelson Lund,Ph.D

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Leg...ad/wm_1851.pdf

    [Teaser Excerpt]

    The parties presenting arguments next week offer three different interpretations of the meaning of the Second Amendment. D.C.’s argument—that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms only in service of a government-organized militia— does not stand up to historical analysis or textual scrutiny. Heller’s position—that the Amendment establishes an individual right to keep ordinary weapons for self protection—is sound but not persuasively argued. And the Bush Administration’s position—recognizing an individual right but leaving the government with some large and undefined power to curtail the right—is dangerously vague and legally weak.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm

    The United States Supreme Court has decided only one significant case involving the Second Amendment, and that was almost 70 years ago. Next week, the Court will return to the issue when it hears arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. This is a test case brought by a D.C. special police officer who carries a gun while on duty. Under D.C.'s extremely restrictive gun control laws, he is forbidden to keep a handgun, or an operable rifle or shotgun, in his home.
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The court concluded that handguns are lineal descendants of founding-era weapons and are still in common use today, so they may not be banned; the court also held that D.C.'s requirement that guns be stored in a mechanically disabled condition is unconstitutional because it prevents them from being used for self-defense.1 The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.
    The parties presenting arguments next week offer three different interpretations of the meaning of the Second Amendment. D.C.'s argument--that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms only in service of a government-organized militia--does not stand up to historical analysis or textual scrutiny. Heller's position--that the Amendment establishes an individual right to keep ordinary weapons for self protection--is sound but not persuasively argued. And the Bush Administration's position--recognizing an individual right but leaving the government with some large and undefined power to curtail the right--is dangerously vague and legally weak.
    Careful textual analysis, along with the relevant historical context, yields a remarkably clear, sensible, and workable answer to the question presented in this case. The Amendment protects an individual right to keep operable firearms for self-defense, which cannot be taken away by federal law. D.C.'s effort to disarm the residents of that city is unconstitutional.
    From Miller to Heller

    The Second Amendment says: "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 United States v. Miller (1939), its only significant case interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court reviewed a federal statute prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered short-barreled shotguns. The Court's opinion, however, is ambiguous about the Amendment's meaning and scope. The crucial passage says:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [short-barreled] shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
    D.C.'s gun control statutes forbid almost all civilians to possess handguns and require other firearms to be stored unloaded and mechanically disabled. The question before the Court is whether these laws violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.
    D.C.'s Argument in Favor of Upholding the Statutes
    D.C.'s principal contention is that 2
    D.C. argues that this conclusion is dictated by the language of the Second Amendment, which is filled with military terminology and refers expressly to the militia without any hint about private uses of firearms. D.C. reinforces its textual argument with historical materials showing (1) that the Amendment was adopted in response to fears that the new federal government might pursue tyrannical aims by disarming the state militias and (2) that there was no discussion of the use of arms for private purposes anywhere in the Amendment's legislative history.
    This argument is untenable.
    First, it implies that the Second Amendment substantially amended a provision of the Constitution (Article I, section 8, cl. 16) that gives Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate the militia. There is no historical evidence at all to support this conclusion.
    Second, a right of the states to organize and arm their own militias as they see fit conflicts with another constitutional provision (Article I, section 10, cl. 3) that prohibits the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress. Once again, there is no evidence that the Second Amendment was meant to repeal this clause of the Constitution.
    Third, the Supreme Court has consistently concluded that the federal government has extremely broad powers to preempt state militia laws and has never suggested that the Second Amendment has any relevance at all to the constitutionality of federal laws preempting state militia regulations.
    D.C. also argues that Miller is consistent with its claim that the right to keep arms applies only to those serving in an organized militia. But Miller said no such thing and never even suggested that it might be relevant whether the defendants in that case were members of any militia.
    In addition to its main argument, D.C. defends its statutes on two alternative and independent grounds. First, the city argues that the Second Amendment's purpose is to protect the states from the federal government so that it has no application in a federal enclave like the District of Columbia. This argument assumes that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment really means "the state governments," which is both implausible and bereft of historical support.
    Second, D.C. argues that if the Court concludes that the Constitution protects a private right to arms, its handgun ban should be upheld as a reasonable effort to protect the public against several unique dangers posed by these weapons. In a related argument, D.C. defends as a reasonable safety regulation its requirement that other guns be stored unloaded and mechanically disabled (either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock). According to the city, its laws contain an implicit exception permitting civilians to unlock their guns if an intruder suddenly appears in their homes.
    This argument was concocted for the occasion. D.C. never before suggested the existence of a "sudden intruder" exception, which in any event would have little practical significance if the victim has to wait until a criminal appears in her bedroom at night before she can start unlocking her gun and loading it with ammunition.
    Heller's Argument for Declaring D.C.'s Laws Unconstitutional
    Heller argues that the Second Amendment's text plainly refers to a pre-existing individual right and contends that this right is necessary for free people to guarantee their security by acting as a militia.3 He emphasizes that the text does not say that fostering a well-regulated militia is the sole purpose of the right to arms. Heller also presents historical evidence that American colonists fought the British using militias that were well regulated without being regulated by the government. According to Heller, "should our Nation suffer tyranny again, preservation of the right to keep and bear arms would enhance the people's ability to act as militia in the manner practiced by the Framers."
    If this argument is right, it would mean that Americans have a constitutional right to keep the weapons they will need to fight against an army controlled by a tyrannical government. That would seem to include, at a minimum, standard infantry weapons like the M-16 machine gun, as well as armor-piercing weapons.
    Instead of drawing that conclusion, Heller maintains that the Second Amendment protects only those weapons (1) that civilians can be expected to use for ordinary lawful purposes and (2) that would be useful in militia service. Handguns meet both prongs of this test, and he concludes that the government therefore may not ban them.
    Heller maintains that this test comes from Miller. Miller, however, articulated a very different test: whether a weapon is "part of the ordinary military equipment or [one whose] use could contribute to the common defense." Miller did mention that 18th century militiamen were expected to report for duty armed with weapons "of the kind in common use at the time," but this was another way of describing what Miller's test called "ordinary military equipment." In the 21st century (unlike the 18th ), civilians do not commonly use standard military equipment like M-16s.4Apart from his interpretation of Miller, Heller assumes rather than establishes that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep firearms for private purposes such as self-defense.
    Finally, Heller argues that if the Court rejects his proposed test, the appropriate constitutional test for laws regulating the right to keep arms would be strict scrutiny, which requires that certain fundamental rights may not be infringed unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
    The Bush Administration's Proposed Non-Decision
    The Bush Administration filed an amicus curiae brief urging that the case be remanded for further consideration by the lower courts.5 Consistent with a 2004 opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the Administration agrees with Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-protection. The Administration, however, argues that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal test when it adopted a categorical rule under which handguns may not be banned. According to this amicus brief, the Court of Appeals' test (which prevents the government from banning guns that are descended from founding-era weapons and that have military utility) would cast constitutional doubt on important federal laws, including the current machinegun statute.
    The Administration also rejects Heller's proposed test (categorical protection for weapons commonly used by civilians and potentially useful in militia service), as well as Heller's alternative argument that strict scrutiny should be applied. Instead, the Administration urges the Court to adopt a more relaxed intermediate scrutiny approach derived from the field of election law. Under certain cases in that field, the government is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions on First Amendment rights in order to serve important regulatory interests. Because the government is authorized to regulate the militia, just as it is authorized to regulate elections, the Administration suggests that these cases provide an appropriate analogy. The Administration goes on to argue that this new test should be applied in the first instance by the lower courts, which might need to consider additional legal or factual issues, such as whether D.C.'s laws permit its residents to load their weapons and reassemble or unlock them in response to a sudden intrusion.
    This legal argument is little more than sleight of hand. D.C.'s laws plainly forbid residents of the city from keeping an operable firearm in their homes for self-protection. In any case, the Supreme Court does not need the assistance of the lower courts to interpret these laws. Furthermore, if the Court were to adopt the Administration's proposed intermediate scrutiny test, the Justices would be better situated than the lower courts to apply that extremely vague test to this case. If the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have weapons for self-protection, as the Administration says it does, D.C.'s ban on all operable firearms must be unconstitutional under any meaningful level or type of scrutiny. The Supreme Court already has all the facts it needs to decide whether or not the Second Amendment protects such a right.6
    The Original Meaning of the Second Amendment
    In an amicus brief filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation, I argue that the Court should take a different approach to the case.7
    The test suggested in Miller is unworkable when applied to modern gun control statutes. Miller asked whether the gun at issue in that case was "part of the ordinary military equipment or [one whose] use could contribute to the common defense." At a minimum, this test would protect standard-issue infantry rifles like the fully automatic M-16 and probably also more lethal weapons like rocket launchers. The ambiguous opinion in Miller suggested this test but did not clearly adopt it, and the Court should decline to extend Miller's suggestion beyond the facts of that case, as it often does when language in a prior opinion seems to point in an unacceptable direction.
    Instead, the Court should focus on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, whose purpose is to prevent Congress from using its Article I authorities, including its authority to regulate the militia, to disarm American citizens.
    The text of the Second Amendment does not imply that the right to arms is confined in any way to militia-related purposes. The most significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that its preamble ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...") is an absolute phrase. Such constructions are grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence and do not qualify any word in the operative clause to which they are appended. The usual function of absolute constructions is to convey some information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause.
    Another very significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that the operative clause ("...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is a command. Because nothing in that command is grammatically qualified by the prefatory assertion, the operative clause has the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted or even if the preamble were demonstrably false.
    Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: "The teacher being ill, class is cancelled." Nothing about the dean's prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean's order is not thereby modified.
    The Second Amendment's grammatical structure is identical, and so are the consequences. Whatever a well-regulated militia may be, or even if such a thing no longer exists, the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." What's more, whether or not such a militia can contribute to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms remains unaffected. Indeed, even if it could be proved beyond all doubt that disarming the people is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would remain unchanged.
    Undoubtedly, new information or changed opinions about the preamble's assertion might suggest the need to issue a new command. If, for example, the dean discovered that the teacher wasn't going to be absent after all, he might make a new announcement reversing his earlier decision. Similarly, if the American people came to believe that civilian disarmament laws were necessary to promote public safety, Congress or the state legislatures might initiate a repeal of the Second Amendment under Article V. In both cases, a new command would be needed because the truth or falsity of the preamble's assertion cannot alter the original, operative command. It is true, of course, that a grammatically absolute phrase--like countless other forms of contextual evidence--may sometimes help to resolve ambiguities in the operative command to which it is appended; but such contextual evidence cannot change the meaning of the command.
    Another textual indication that the preamble does not limit the operative language is provided by the Second Amendment's use of "Militia" and "the people." These are different words with different meanings. The militia has always been a small subset of "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. James Madison, for example, estimated that the militia comprised about one-sixth of the population when the Constitution was adopted. Most obviously, women were not part of the 18th century militia. Women, however, have always been citizens and thus part of "the people," as the Supreme Court has recognized. Just as women have always been covered by the First Amendment's "right of the people" to assemble and petition for redress of grievances and the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people" to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, women have always had the same Second Amendment rights as men.
    Even if one mistakenly supposed that "the people" referred to in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments included only those citizens with full political rights (thus excluding women), the militia and the people would not come close to being coextensive bodies of individuals. Under the 1792 Militia Act, for example, the militia included large numbers of men who did not have full political rights, and the law exempted many men who did have full political rights.
    All of this points to another fatal defect in D.C.'s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Constitution allows Congress to exempt everyone from militia duties, as the Supreme Court has recognized. It would be absurd to think that Congress could abolish the right of "the people" to keep arms simply by abolishing the militia. Nor can the right to keep arms be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain.
    There must, of course, be some logical relationship between the Second Amendment's preamble and its operative clause. Focus again on the language of the Constitution. One obvious way for a militia to be well regulated is for it to be well trained or well disciplined as a military organization, and the framers of the Second Amendment no doubt meant to conjure thoughts of such an organization. The Second Amendment, however, added absolutely nothing to Congress's sweeping Article I authority to provide for military training and discipline. This is significant because there is another meaning of "well regulated" that is actually more relevant in this context.
    To see why, note that any possible contribution of the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia must arise from governmental inaction (that is, from not adopting regulations that infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms). Furthermore, the term "well regulated" need not mean heavily regulated or more regulated. On the contrary, it is perfectly possible for the government to engage in excessive regulation or inappropriate regulation, and such regulations are just what the Second Amendment forbids.
    As its operative clause makes clear, the Second Amendment simply forbids one kind of inappropriate regulation (among the infinite possible regulations) that Congress might be tempted to enact under its sweeping authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" for executing its Article I militia powers (or perhaps other delegated powers). What is that one kind of inappropriate regulation? Disarming the citizens from among whom a traditional militia--a part-time body of citizens available for emergency military duties--must be constituted.
    The history of the Second Amendment confirms this limited and indirect--though real--relationship between a well-regulated militia and the constitutional right to arms. At the Philadelphia Convention, qualms were repeatedly expressed about the danger of standing armies in peacetime, along with a preference for maintaining the traditional militia as an alternative to professional armies composed of paid troops. It was also recognized, however, that a traditional militia could not, by itself, adequately provide for the nation's security, even in peacetime. Accordingly, the delegates put no significant limits on federal military authority in the constitution they proposed.
    During the subsequent ratification debates, the massive transfer of military authority to the federal government became one of the chief Anti-Federalist complaints. The Federalists who controlled the First Congress, however, were no more willing than the Philadelphia Convention had been to curtail federal authority in this field. As Madison noted when introducing his initial draft of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, he was averse to reconsidering the principles and substance of the powers given to the new government, but he was quite prepared to incorporate provisions for the security of rights to which no one would object.
    Consistent with Madison's view--though not with D.C.'s interpretation of the Second Amendment--Congress rejected proposals to put substantive limits on congressional authority over the militia. What the First Congress was quite willing to do, and what it did do in the Second Amendment, was to make explicit the utterly noncontroversial denial of federal power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    When Congress sent the Bill of Rights to the states for ratification, it described its provisions as "declaratory and restrictive clauses" meant to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution's powers. The Second Amendment has both declaratory and restrictive elements. The words of praise for the militia in the Second Amendment are simply a declaration of respect for the traditional militia system, which might--or, in practice, might not--provide an alternative to the standing armies that many citizens feared. That explains both why the declaratory preamble was included and why the Amendment was carefully drafted to ensure that the restriction on federal infringement of the people's right to arms is not dependent on its actually contributing to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.
    The Supreme Court has often recognized that the Constitution contains language whose omission would not have changed the meaning of the document. Perhaps the best example came from the very same draftsmen who gave us the Second Amendment. The Tenth Amendment simply reaffirms what was already established by the original Constitution: "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." The Court concluded long ago that the Tenth Amendment changed nothing in the Constitution and that its purpose was only to allay fears of federal overreaching. Accordingly, it is not at all anomalous that the Second Amendment--drafted by the same Congress and adopted at the same time--includes a reassuring comment about the militia that was not meant to change or limit the effects of the operative clause to which it was appended.
    Respect for the original meaning of the Second Amendment requires that its language be applied--faithfully and appropriately--to contemporary society, which is, in important respects, quite different from that of two centuries ago. With respect to the right to arms, the concern that was foremost for the founding generation--fear of a tyrannical federal government--has subsided. At the same time, the military power of the government has become overwhelming, which greatly diminishes, though does not eliminate, the potential of an armed citizenry to deter governmental oppression.
    Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today's infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self-defense or other lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require the Supreme Court to blind itself to that reality or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.
    Nor should the Court blind itself to other contemporary realities, the most important of which is the problem of criminal violence and the inability of the government to control it. Rather than focus exclusively on 18th century comments about maintaining an armed counterweight to the armies of a potentially tyrannical federal government, the Court should recognize that the broader purpose of the Second Amendment emerges readily from the Constitution's founding principles.
    Those founding principles are summed up in the familiar liberal axioms set out in the Declaration of Independence. In liberal theory, the most fundamental of all rights is the right of self-defense. Among the political theorists most often cited by major American writers during the founding period, there was unanimous agreement about the centrality of the right of self-defense. To take just one example, Blackstone said: "Self-defence therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society."
    The exchange of rights that constitutes the social contract does not diminish the central importance of the natural right to self-defense. Rather, political or legal limitations on the exercise of that right must be understood as efforts to enhance the citizens' ability to protect their lives effectively. For that reason alone, the Second Amendment should be applied vigorously with respect to governmental restrictions on the liberty of citizens to defend themselves against the violent criminals whom the government cannot control.
    This corollary to the central premise of liberal political theory is consistent with evidence about 18th century attitudes. Blackstone, for example, characterized the English right to arms as a "public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." Just as one would expect from the fundamental principle of liberal theory, Blackstone makes no distinction between oppression by the government itself and oppression that the government fails to prevent. If anything, his language seems to refer more easily to the ineradicable phenomenon of criminal violence, experienced by all free societies, than to the extraordinary instances of governmental oppression that call for armed resistance.
    In America, a similarly broad understanding of the purpose of the right to arms was articulated repeatedly during the founding period in state constitutions, in proposals for a federal bill of rights, and by distinguished statesmen. The natural right of self-defense is the most fundamental right known to liberal theory, and the Second Amendment is our Constitution's most direct legal expression of Blackstone's insight that "in vain would [basic rights such as that of personal security] be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the [English] constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment."
    It would not be easy to find a more vivid illustration of Blackstone's point than the District of Columbia, where every effort has been made to disarm the citizenry. According to what Blackstone called "the dead letter of the laws," personal security must be very well assured in a city where almost nobody except agents of the government is authorized to possess an operable firearm. The reality is far different, and nothing in the Constitution requires the Supreme Court to ignore that reality.
    In the 21st century, the most salient purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people's ability to defend themselves against violent criminals. Accordingly, the District of Columbia must be required to offer justifications for gun control statutes that go far beyond fashionable slogans and unsubstantiated appeals to hypothetical salutary effects on public safety. Any other approach would trivialize the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment.
    The D.C. Code unequivocally forbids American citizens to keep an operable firearm in their own homes for the protection of their own lives. Under no standard of review that respects the fundamental nature of the Second Amendment right could this prohibition possibly be upheld.
    A Narrow Decision?
    If the Supreme Court accepts D.C.'s principal contention--that civilians have no constitutional right to possess firearms except in connection with militia service--the Second Amendment will essentially become a dead letter. The states might retain a theoretical right to keep up militia forces at their own expense, but the federal government has never sought to prevent them from doing so. Furthermore, if Congress ever wanted to do so, it presumably could induce the desired abolition of state militias by offering financial inducements in the form of conditional grants, just as it has induced states to raise the drinking age to 21 by threatening to cut off highway funding to those that do not comply.
    If the Court recognizes a right to the private possession and use of firearms, the significance of the case will depend on how it defines the nature and scope of the right. D.C.'s laws are so highly restrictive that a decision upholding them is likely to mean that virtually any gun control regime will be regarded as the kind of reasonable regulation that the government is free to adopt. This would leave the Second Amendment with little practical significance.
    If the Court strikes down D.C.'s regulations (or adopts the Bush Administration's invitation to remand the case), a great many important questions are likely to remain open. Because this would be the first case in history in which the federal courts invalidated a gun control statute under the Second Amendment, the Court would probably write its opinion narrowly. And because D.C.'s statute is apparently the most restrictive in the nation, such an opinion would probably not provide clear guidance to lower courts faced with challenges to less restrictive statutes.
    Another reason to expect that an opinion invalidating D.C.'s statutes would be narrowly written arises from a question not directly raised in this case. Originally, the Bill of Rights affected only federal laws like the one at issue in this case. By the end of the 20th century, the Supreme Court had applied most provisions of the Bill of Rights to state (and local) laws as well, using an "incorporation" doctrine derived from Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process. During this time, the Court also decided that a few Bill of Rights provisions do not apply to the state governments. The Court has never decided whether or not substantive due process renders the Second Amendment applicable to the state and local governments.
    Except for the regulations at issue in this case, the federal government has adopted few laws imposing significant restrictions on civilian access to ordinary firearms. Most of the laws that might be vulnerable to plausible Second Amendment challenges have been adopted by state and local governments, and the "incorporation" issue will undoubtedly be presented to the Court if it strikes down the federal statutes at issue in this case.
    Recognizing this, the Court will probably be cautious about making definitive statements that could have unforeseen consequences with respect to a wide variety of statutory schemes that it has not yet had occasion to examine in detail. But it should not hesitate to affirm the core right to protect one's home and family against the criminal predators who pay no attention at all to disarmament statutes like those at issue in this case.
    Nelson Lund, Ph.D., is Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at the George Mason University School of Law.
    1 Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), available at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf.
    2 Petitioner's brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court), available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...Petitioner.pdf.
    3 Respondent's brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court), available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...Respondent.pdf.
    4 For a more sophisticated argument that Miller can be read to limit Second Amendment rights to commonly used civilian weapons, see amicus brief of Charles J. Cooper et al., on behalf of several former Justice Department officials, in support of respondents in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court), pp. 29-33, available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...rOfficials.pdf.
    5 Bush Administration's amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court), available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...nerAmCuUSA.pdf.
    6 For a detailed critique of the Administration's position, see brief of Bradford Berenson et al., on behalf of the Goldwater Institute, in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court), available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...dwaterInst.pdf.
    7 Brief of Nelson Lund, on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation, in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court), available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...AmendFound.pdf.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Greetings;
    Will somebody PLEASE show me where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have the right to bear arms?

    I Love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.


  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    rentiap wrote:
    Greetings;
    Will somebody PLEASE show me where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have the right to bear arms?

    I Love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.
    Welcome to OCDO.

    Sure, just read the Heller brief, the pro-gun amicae briefs, and hunt up the numerous scholarly papers on the history of the right to keep and bear arms. A right that pre-dates the American Revolution--it goes back to the 1688 English Declaration of Rights.

    The actual connection is that the "militia" are the people, the citizens. Numerous Founder's writings available to confirm this point. Depending on what state you are from, you may even be a member of the militia by law. I know I am in VA.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    rentiap wrote:
    Greetings;
    Will somebody PLEASE show me where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have the right to bear arms?

    I Love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.
    Welcome to OCDO.

    Sure, just read the Heller brief, the pro-gun amicae briefs, and hunt up the numerous scholarly papers on the history of the right to keep and bear arms. A right that pre-dates the American Revolution--it goes back to the 1688 English Declaration of Rights.

    The actual connection is that the "militia" are the people, the citizens. Numerous Founder's writings available to confirm this point. Depending on what state you are from, you may even be a member of the militia by law. I know I am in VA.
    Thanks for the welcome
    Please do not get me wrong here, I have read the constitution and am more than aware of what is contained within.


    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.
    Maybe you could point out where in the second amendment it says anything about citizen,citizens or even the word citizenry?



  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    'the right of the PEOPLE" is pretty clear to me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Notso wrote:
    'the right of the PEOPLE" is pretty clear to me.
    Yes it is very clear to me also, But,
    Most of the contributors to this forum don't seem to have comprehension as to who or what they are,
    Citizens=slaves.
    If you are a citizen of anything then you owe fealty to some higher power.
    Citizens only have one right given to them by the Con-stitution and that is the right to vote. Other than that Citizens only have privileges and immunities, which can be taken away from them.

    First off the state that I was born in and I have never left that state is,
    Mostly liquid, some solid and sometimes gas.
    I live in my body.
    As hearsay I was told that I was born on the soil formally known as Californio.
    I have never set foot in the UNITED STATES
    For one thing the UNITED STATES does not exist in nature and the UNITED STATES OR U.S. is an artificial entity,
    And a living, breathing, flesh, bone and blood sentient man as I am cannot exist in an artificial entity
    So therefore I have never been in the UNITED STATES or the U.S. Nor have I been in the State of California
    I am not an citizen of the UNITED STATES nor the STATE of CALIFORNIA.
    Those are private clubs and I have never knowingly, willingly after being fully informed of all consequences joined those private clubs.
    If I have not joined a private club, do any of their codes, regulations, statutes or laws apply to me?
    Then I guess none of those gun regulations, statutes, codes or laws applies to me do they?

    The sooner the people of this forum figure out that they are Living, breathing, flesh, bone and blood sentient Men or Woman.
    And not citizens=slaves.
    The sooner they will quit fighting their public servants and start living like the creators that they are. The sooner they will not have to worry weather they can owne guns or be able to carry them openly or even concealed. as I do.

    I love you, I’m sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    rentiap wrote:
    Notso wrote:
    'the right of the PEOPLE" is pretty clear to me.
    Yes it is very clear to me also, But,
    Most of the contributors to this forum don't seem to have comprehension as to who or what they are,
    Citizens=slaves.
    If you are a citizen of anything then you owe fealty to some higher power.
    Citizens only have one right given to them by the Con-stitution and that is the right to vote. Other than that Citizens only have privileges and immunities, which can be taken away from them.

    First off the state that I was born in and I have never left that state is,
    Mostly liquid, some solid and sometimes gas.
    I live in my body.
    As hearsay I was told that I was born on the soil formally known as Californio.
    I have never set foot in the UNITED STATES
    For one thing the UNITED STATES does not exist in nature and the UNITED STATES OR U.S. is an artificial entity,
    And a living, breathing, flesh, bone and blood sentient man as I am cannot exist in an artificial entity
    So therefore I have never been in the UNITED STATES or the U.S. Nor have I been in the State of California
    I am not an citizen of the UNITED STATES nor the STATE of CALIFORNIA.
    Those are private clubs and I have never knowingly, willingly after being fully informed of all consequences joined those private clubs.
    If I have not joined a private club, do any of their codes, regulations, statutes or laws apply to me?
    Then I guess none of those gun regulations, statutes, codes or laws applies to me do they?

    The sooner the people of this forum figure out that they are Living, breathing, flesh, bone and blood sentient Men or Woman.
    And not citizens=slaves.
    The sooner they will quit fighting their public servants and start living like the creators that they are. The sooner they will not have to worry weather they can owne guns or be able to carry them openly or even concealed. as I do.

    I love you, I’m sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.
    Whoa Craig, I want some of what you're smokin! :celebrateHook a brotha up!


  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    The Constitution does not "give" rights, it enumerates them and protects them, but it does not give them, nor create them. You are correct that citizens are slaves subject to the laws they are bound by, luckily the second amendment says people. People=Citizens, illegal aliens,residents, and other humans. Even if the Constitution did not have the second amendment the right of the people to keep and bear arms would still "exist', just not in written form. You seem to lack an understanding of what a "right" is as opposed to a privilege which can be taken away. A right even unrecognized is still a right, even an animal has rights, we don't even have to enumerate them to see what they are. an animal can eat when it wants or look for food at its leisure, it can sleep or wake when it wants, it can defend itself by any means necessary and available to it, escape or attack.It can live wherever it wants. Only forces of nature can take away these rights, government can only "restrict" rights thru bans, regulation,licensing and the like but it will never be able to take them away.I hope this explains how even citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, remember some criminals are citizens too, fealty is a thing of honesty which is becoming less common with every passing year, so fealty to a higher power doesn't mean it owns you it just means you "can" do what it says.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Well said but for the animal 'rights' tangent. Abilities are not 'rights'.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    I read somewhere recently that the people of the United States are the supreme sovereign.. not the state. Being that the case, all else is subject to the whim of the people. Funny, this is exactly how the wording of the Declaration of Independence, and many other writings of the Founders, describes the people versus all else.. as in government.

    Others have already pointed out that the Bill of Rights does not setup or institute rights, but merely recognizes those which are known as Natural rights and then goes about casting a warning to government that these rights are not to be disturbed, altered, or infringed. We know they have been victim to all three of these impediments. It further states that those rights not enumerated are reserved to the people.

    The Bill of Rights does a pretty good job as it is and that is why it is such a thorn in the side of those who would see it trampled upon.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    I think I am a pretty open-minded person, but, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    MetalChris wrot
    Whoa Craig, I want some of what you're smokin! :celebrateHook a brotha up!
    Hello MetalChris;
    sorry brotha I don't smoke that wacky weed, but if I had some I sure wouldn't be wasting the THC contained within on smokin , But I would definately be using it to cure people of cancer and other ailments.
    But then again the government and
    pharmaceuticle companies would not want that to happen now would it?



    I love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.


  14. #14
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    WARCHILD wrote:
    I think I am a pretty open-minded person, but, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
    Haha, I agree. But I do see where he's coming from. We've all entered into an agreement to be ruled. We've given ourselves the illusion of structure and control. When others want to exert their control over us using the same agreement we end up with conflict. He point is well stated. However, there are consequences to choosing to not live by the tribes rules. I can decide that as a sentient being I'm free to choose to OC into the white house. But at that point it won't matter what I think about it.

    As a species we've decided to structure our society's based on hierarchy. Some rule, some follow. The great thing about our constitution is that it at least gives us the illusion of control over who is going to rule us. However, I've seemed to notice that the differences between our choices have become small and pointless. So for all my babbling I see where this dude is coming from but until we as a species change the way we decide to live all the lofty thoughts in the world won't mean ****.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    WARCHILD wrote:
    I think I am a pretty open-minded person, but, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
    So you are a person huh?
    Person is a derivative of persona, which came from the time of Greek stage plays when they did not have microphones and electronic equipment to broadcast or amplify their voices,
    So they would make very large heads out of paper machete and contained within that very large head was also incorporated a cone that would help broadcast their voices to the audience of their stage plays. It was also known as the mask that an actor wears. An artificial entity.

    The truth is that I am using the persona of rentiap to converse on this forum since I the man cannot be there in your presence to speak to you face to face.
    But I am using this persona, I am not this persona. I am a living, breathing, flesh, bone and blood sentient man, Vessel holding the spirit that I am.

    I am not a Mr. or a sir, a resident (a thing identified), an alien (illegal or otherwise), a you, a hu-man (the hu of a man or what looks like) and definitely not a citizen, nor a person.

    I am not a state defined juristic person,
    I am not a person as defined neither by any statutes nor subject to any of them.
    I am not a corporation.
    I do not have a name.
    A name is that designation which is assigned to property by the owner thereof. I am not property and I do not have an owner, therefore I do not have a name.
    I am the recipient holder of a Certificate of live birth, and have the use of the name upon said certificate to do business in, I do not own that name contained therein because it is the intellectual property of the one who registered and trademarked it at the time that I, the living child was born, at the same time a person(a ) was berthed, that is my power of attorney and license to bind the owner of that name into any contract that I wish to enter them into.
    Those are all labels and artificial entities.
    I am simply a man.


    What planet?
    The third rock from the sun. But of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    I love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.


  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    rentiap wrote:
    WARCHILD wrote:
    I think I am a pretty open-minded person, but, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
    So you are a person huh?
    Not bad, Rentiap. I get what you're saying. Nothing wrong with being spiritual.

    As to your question and the discussion about citizens and slaves, there is earlier information that is not included in the Constitution.

    For the American nation, its in the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post


    hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the
    rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the Peopleat large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler ofNor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.



    Please show me where in this document does it say anything about citizens?
    I have highlighted the places where it speaks about the people but nowhere does it say anything about citizens?



    BTW I, a man do not consent to be governed by this government instituted by other men.

    Do I have the right to tell you to do anything?
    Do you have the right to tell me to do anything?
    If neither of us have that right then where does the government get it's right to tell us to do anything?

    If you and I were standing outside of a department store and we were admiring this really great looking brand new Corvette sitting in the parking lott.
    If I told you that you could have that Corvette, do I have the right to tell you that you can have that car?

    Okay what if I went into the store and got five other people to come out and tell you that you could have that car, do any of us just because there are five of us telling you that you can have that car the right to give it to you?

    What if fifty people decided to vote to give you that car, do we have the right to give you that car just because we voted on it? How about fifty thousand people voted?
    (BTW none of us own that car) Are you getting my meaning ?

    I love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    C'mon. Work with me here.

    Governments are instituted by men to protect rights.

    Men=people. Once a government is set up, people=citizens. Citizens as distinguished from members of government.

    Then, if the government "becomes destructive of those ends" it is the right of the people/citizens to abolish said destructive government.

    As to consent, you might want to google and read No Treason by Lysander Spooner. Great essay. He really disassembles the consentaspect of the Constitution.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    rentiap wrote:
    .....Yes it is very clear to me also, But,....
    allright Rentiap, let's see if I can help you to understand a little better. first, "ctizen" does NOT equal "slave". under the Colonial system, and even today in England (and elsewhere) every man woman and child was (is) considered to be under teh authority of a sovereign. they were (are) subjects to the crown. The Founding fathers realized that this manner of thinking was not only obsolete, but quite dangerous as well. They set out to establish a form of government which recognized the unalienable rights of the individual, as opposed to rights supposedly "granted" by a sovereign. They understood that natural rights came not from a decree of government, or an order from the king; but from teh creator himself. They also understood that the purpose of government wasn't to "grant" rights, but to protect those rights. it was in this spirit that the constitution was written.

    As far as how the second ammendment relates to the people and to the "well regulated militia"...

    The second ammendment was drafted and debated in Congress throughout 1789. The final draft was sent out to the states for ratification later that same year.

    In 1792, the congress passed the "General militia act", which set forth guidelines for the unorganized militia. Due to the particular wording of the second clause of the second ammendment " ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." and the militia acts definition of the militia ( every able bodied male ages 17 to 45), it is not hard to realize that the "well regulated militia" refers to every citizen.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    C'mon. Work with me here.

    Governments are instituted by men to protect rights.

    Men=people. Once a government is set up, people=citizens. Citizens as distinguished from members of government.

    Then, if the government "becomes destructive of those ends" it is the right of the people/citizens to abolish said destructive government.

    As to consent, you might want to google and read No Treason by Lysander Spooner. Great essay. He really disassembles the consentaspect of the Constitution.
    Well I am trying to work with you, But you keep trying to put words or meanings to something that does not exist.
    People does not mean nor is it synonymous with citizen.

    Maybe a heirchy needs to be set here.

    without getting religeous here.
    There was a creator
    and that creator made man=people,
    man made governments
    governments made citizens=slaves
    citizens are of a second class.

    citizens may not tell the government what to do
    and governments may not tell man what to do
    and likewise man may not tell the creator what to do.

    Simple eh?

    Yes I read Lysander Spooners work years ago and his work is sorely lacking.

    Shucks I thought you might be suggesting some real materials to read, Like works of Thomas Paine!!!
    http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/index.htm

    I love you, I'm sorry, please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Listen guy, some of us live in the real world and not this mystic dream you seem to think life is. I understand, and even enjoy, some of the abstract philosphies that have been published by people over the years, but in your life it seems that this type of thought has completely invaded your decision making process.

    I'd write a drawn out explanation of my thoughts on the subject but in the conservation of my time and effort, I'll simply say this: Get a life.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    I am not quite sure how to use your forum and I am new here as well, but I have to agree with rentiap. You guys really need to look up words you are using, like person. Do you know what the word person means in law. Under statute it means, labor organizations partnerships associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees among others. I am not a person under statute. I am created by God and have been "ndowed with certain unalienable rights." Did government give me those rights or is it the duty of government to protect those rights according to the contract (Constitution) they are bound to uphold (Oath of Office)? The Constitution for these united states of America is not a limitation on people. People do not have constitutional rights, as the Constitution bestowed nothing on the people.

    Like rentiap, I am a man upon the land. Government did not create me and I am not a legal fiction. That is reserved for persons aka as artificial entities/legal fictions.

    Now the 14th Amendment did create subject citizens. Take a look at section 1 of the Amendment.

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    I do not know about the rest of you, but I am no "person" born in the United States, nor am I subject to its jurisdiction. The 2nd Amendment confers upon me no rights. The right to carry is an unalienable right that I have been endowed with by my Creator.

    If the Constitution has given me rights then why the need for the Nintth Amendment?

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    I have to tell you. You guys on this forum really need to do more research and study on thses issues. One of the reasons this country is in the mess that it is is because people have lost sight of why this great nation was created. It was not created so the government could rule ruff shod over the people and usurp the authority it was given by the People. Government is our servant, not the other way around.

    That is my two cents.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    rentiap wrote:
    SNIP Well I am trying to work with you, But you keep trying to put words or meanings to something that does not exist.
    OK. Lets start over.

    You originally wrote:

    Greetings;
    Will somebody PLEASE show me where in the second amendment does it say that citizens have the right to bear arms?

    I Love you, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you.
    Craig.



    It doesn't; its says peoplehave a right to keep and bear arms.Next question.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I am not quite sure how to use your forum and I am new here as well, but I have to agree with rentiap. You guys really need to look up words you are using, like person. Do you know what the word person means in law. Under statute it means, labor organizations partnerships associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees among others. I am not a person under statute. I am created by God and have been "ndowed with certain unalienable rights." Did government give me those rights or is it the duty of government to protect those rights according to the contract (Constitution) they are bound to uphold (Oath of Office)? The Constitution for these united states of America is not a limitation on people. People do not have constitutional rights, as the Constitution bestowed nothing on the people.

    Like rentiap, I am a man upon the land. Government did not create me and I am not a legal fiction. That is reserved for persons aka as artificial entities/legal fictions.

    Now the 14th Amendment did create subject citizens. Take a look at section 1 of the Amendment.

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    I do not know about the rest of you, but I am no "person" born in the United States, nor am I subject to its jurisdiction. The 2nd Amendment confers upon me no rights. The right to carry is an unalienable right that I have been endowed with by my Creator.

    If the Constitution has given me rights then why the need for the Nintth Amendment?

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    I have to tell you. You guys on this forum really need to do more research and study on thses issues. One of the reasons this country is in the mess that it is is because people have lost sight of why this great nation was created. It was not created so the government could rule ruff shod over the people and usurp the authority it was given by the People. Government is our servant, not the other way around.

    That is my two cents.
    "labor organizations partnerships associations"

    I am quite certain such a thing as the above cannot exist, but I could possibly be wrong. I suspect what you meant was,

    "labor organizations, partnerships, associations"

    Left out the commas.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I am not quite sure how to use your forum and I am new here as well, but I have to agree with rentiap. You guys really need to look up words you are using, like person. Do you know what the word person means in law. Under statute it means, labor organizations partnerships associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees among others. I am not a person under statute. I am created by God and have been "ndowed with certain unalienable rights." Did government give me those rights or is it the duty of government to protect those rights according to the contract (Constitution) they are bound to uphold (Oath of Office)? The Constitution for these united states of America is not a limitation on people. People do not have constitutional rights, as the Constitution bestowed nothing on the people.

    Like rentiap, I am a man upon the land. Government did not create me and I am not a legal fiction. That is reserved for persons aka as artificial entities/legal fictions.

    Now the 14th Amendment did create subject citizens. Take a look at section 1 of the Amendment.

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    I do not know about the rest of you, but I am no "person" born in the United States, nor am I subject to its jurisdiction. The 2nd Amendment confers upon me no rights. The right to carry is an unalienable right that I have been endowed with by my Creator.

    If the Constitution has given me rights then why the need for the Nintth Amendment?

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    I have to tell you. You guys on this forum really need to do more research and study on thses issues. One of the reasons this country is in the mess that it is is because people have lost sight of why this great nation was created. It was not created so the government could rule ruff shod over the people and usurp the authority it was given by the People. Government is our servant, not the other way around.

    That is my two cents.
    "labor organizations partnerships associations"

    I am quite certain such a thing as the above cannot exist, but I could possibly be wrong. I suspect what you meant was,

    "labor organizations, partnerships, associations"

    Left out the commas.
    Yep, my bad. I am not the greatest typist and my wife walked in and said let's go before I had a chance to proof read. Thanks for the correction.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •