The Second Amendment is useless - Page 4

The Second Amendment is useless

This is a discussion on The Second Amendment is useless within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; SelfDefense "Sometimes, not this time. Although the final opinion went against the gun owners. Their statement (on incorporation) was nothing but an inconsequential political views." ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 51 of 51
  1. #46
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    SelfDefense

    "Sometimes, not this time. Although the final opinion went against the gun owners. Their statement (on incorporation) was nothing but an inconsequential political views."

    The Nordyke decision only partially went against gun owners. The 9th Circuit recognized the 2nd amendment as an individual and fundamental right and the decision was in support of incorporation.

    As for inconsequential, I think not. It's the law in California.

    "Apples and oranges. Treason is well defined and has nothing to do with the discussion. Congress has the power to supress any insurrection."

    Treason is defined with the understanding that treason would in insurrection against a government that was protecting the inalienable rights and freedoms of its citizens. It would be irrational and contrary to the contemporary history to believe that treason in the eyes of the Founders was to rebell against a tyrannical government. That argument makes no sense.

    "This could not be more false. The Constitution was written to define a Federal governemnt, explicitly state its enumerated powers, define who, how often, and for how long people can hold various positions. It defines the roles of the states and a method for amending the document."

    Wrong. The Constitution wasn't written to define just any government. It was written to define a government that protected the fundamental rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence and further defined in the Bill of Rights.

    Finally, I'm not going to get into a cut and paste battle with you. The 14th amendment does bind the States to protect and not infringe on the fundamental rights protected from Federal government infringement in the Bill of Rights. Heller substantiates the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right and the 9th Circuit has ruled in favor of incorporation. To whatever extent that usurps Cruishank so be it.

    "We have not lost our technological edge. We lead the world in every technology."

    Wrong.

    China and India are graduating more students with advanced degrees in science and math then then U.S. I believe Israel leads the world in patents with respect to advanced electronics. The U.S. educational system is now number 15th or so in the world. The largest growth of middle class individuals is in India and/or China.

    I love this country but over the last 30 years we have squandered our wealth and resourses.


  2. #47
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    The Nordyke decision only partially went against gun owners. The 9th Circuit recognized the 2nd amendment as an individual and fundamental right and the decision was in support of incorporation.
    It doesn't matter what the Ninth's political views are. The Supreme Court decisions are precedents, to which the lower courts must adhere. The gun owners lost the decision. It puts the statist in a quandry. They 'won' the rhetoric but lost the decision.

    As for inconsequential, I think not. It's the law in California.
    I know liberals and libertaruans want the courts to make law but that isn't the case. The laws in California did not change.

    Treason is defined with the understanding that treason would in insurrection against a government that was protecting the inalienable rights and freedoms of its citizens. It would be irrational and contrary to the contemporary history to believe that treason in the eyes of the Founders was to rebell against a tyrannical government. That argument makes no sense.
    Huh? Any insurrection against the United States government can (and will be) suppressed by the Federal government. That is a power reserved to Congress by the Founders. Like the bizarre argument that the states voted to abdicate their sovereign rights it is equally bizarre to think the Founders wanted their new government to e overthrown.

    Wrong. The Constitution wasn't written to define just any government. It was written to define a government that protected the fundamental rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence and further defined in the Bill of Rights.
    I suggest you read the body of the Constituion. It is exactly what I wrote. Why do you think it is something that it is not? The anti-Federalists were like frightened mice, fearful of their shadow. They did not understand a government of limited powers. That is why they lost the battle to defeat the Constitution using the same incorrect arguments you are attempting.

    Finally, I'm not going to get into a cut and paste battle with you.
    You can dismiss the intent of the Founders and the words of the Court if you choose. It does not change the facts.

    The 14th amendment does bind the States to protect and not infringe on the fundamental rights protected from Federal government infringement in the Bill of Rights.
    Can you point out where in the 14th the Bill of Rights is mentioned? You are correct about the lack of proper historical education in our public schools. Very few are aware of the inception of our nation, biased by the revisionist, liberal views.

    Your view in not consistent with the Founder's intent, the Courts interpretation both before and after the 14th. In short, you are wrong.

    Heller substantiates the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right and the 9th Circuit has ruled in favor of incorporation. To whatever extent that usurps Cruishank so be it.
    A circuit court cannot overturn the Supreme Court. In fact, they should be disciplined for their outrageos abuse of judicial power. Yes, Heller affirmed that the Federal government cannot ban guns. That is why Heler was chosen. It is a Federal District thing. It has NOTHING to do with the states.

    China and India are graduating more students with advanced degrees in science and math then then U.S.
    And the US graduates more lawyers. Are we legally advanced? Your argument is weak. Kids getting through school is not the same as developing technology.

    I remember when there were a bunch of foreign students in my engineeging class, sitting in the back and cheating. I confronted the professor and he said he knew but didn;t care. He said, 'Let them go back home and build bridges that fall down.' That pretty mush sums it up.

    By far, the US is the technological leader in the world. All other nations follow.

    [QUOTE}I believe Israel leads the world in patents with respect to advanced electronics.[/QUOTE]

    And why would you believe that?

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,785
    LOL.. he's working on his thesis.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    "It doesn't matter what the Ninth's political views are. The Supreme Court decisions are precedents, to which the lower courts must adhere. The gun owners lost the decision. It puts the statist in a quandry. They 'won' the rhetoric but lost the decision."

    You're missing the point. The 9th Circuit ruling was made in light of the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. Based on that ruling the 9th Circuit was bound to recognize the application of the 14th amendment with respect to the 2nd amendment. This does matter to the citizens of California and will be support for incorporation cases in other states.

    "Any insurrection against the United States government can (and will be) suppressed by the Federal government."

    If the insurrection is against powers exercise by a tyrannical government that seeks to crush the fundamental rights of the people then the Federal government will have ceased to be the government created by the Constitution to protect those rights and you can call the insurrection treason or whatever else you want. The labels are meaningless. Hilter called those who opposed him traitors.

    "I suggest you read the body of the Constituion."

    I've read the body of the Constitution. The Constitution was drafted to create a form of government that provided for the maximum amount of individual freedom in a civilized society. When the government and laws cease to perform that function they are to be rejected and over thrown. That is the principle the Founders worked under. It was the genesis for the Declaration of Independence and could be the foundation for a future insurrection. Of course it will be rejected and surpressed by those in power. Evil always resist good.

    I can pull quotes by the Founder highlight the purpose of the Constitution and the history of the 2nd amendment as well as the 14th amendment to prove my point point but I really don't think it is necessary.

    Heller and the 9th Circuit recognize the 2nd amendment as a fundamental right. The 9th Circuit and I imagine many of circuit courts will also incorporate this right. The 14th amendment as written is clear to anyone that reads and understands English that the purpose of the amendment is to insure that the states do not infringe on fundamental Constitutional rights.

    "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."

    Pretty straight forward for most that refuse to parse and twist the meaning of every word and ignor the contemporary history leading up to the passage of the amendment.

    "And the US graduates more lawyers."

    We're talking about technological leadership and you mention graduating more lawyers. Are you serious?

  5. #50
    Senior Member Array BRTCP88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    574
    To Self-defense: I'm a libertarian and I'm strongly against judicial activism. Go to the Libertarian Party's website and go some research. I will admit that I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in the primary, and I'm a conservative leaning libertarian.

    Something I forgot to say, the Civil War didn't change anything on paper but it vindicated the idea that states are subservient to the Federal government and thus allowed them to ignore the constitutional restraints on their power when if was viewed to be "in the general interest," like outlawing slavery, banning guns, instituting massive government social programs, etc., etc., etc.

    That's all I'm gonna say.

  6. #51
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    SD,

    Even Republics have a certain shelf life. Historically, they degenerate. They can either become Oligarchies or they can completely disintegrate through out of control Democracy. Your view that the U.S. government is eternal and that armed insurrection could never be justified is incredibly naive. That being said, I do agree that we have not come close to the level of tyranny that would make me comfortable with taking up arms against the U.S. government.

    As far as your remarks about libertarians: there is a difference between declaring that behavior is immoral and enforcing morality at the point of the sword. I believe that drunkenness and other forms of irresponsible use of recreational drugs is immoral, but it does not automatically follow that it ought to be declared illegal. Where is the wronged party who must seek redress? If they are engaging in that behavior on their own property by themselves, they are not damaging either another individual or society at large. Related behavior that harms society (public inebriation; DWI; spousal abuse) would still be proscribed even if drug laws were overturned. Meanwhile, the black market that supplies most of our drug (and firearm) related violence would wither and die.

    I am adamantly opposed to positive law that seeks to prevent harm to society (for two reasons: first because they are inimical to liberty - not only rogues are ensnared, and second for purely pragmatic reasons - they do not work and cause more harm than good) and believe that law ought to consist primarily of sanctions that come into play ex post facto.

    Ryan
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. CCW permit will be useless now?
    By Northface in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: November 17th, 2009, 07:13 PM
  3. A Useless Feature
    By Euclidean in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2005, 05:10 PM
  4. .17 - useless?
    By P95Carry in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 15th, 2005, 12:15 PM
  5. Useless Information
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment useless

,
amendment 7 useless?
,
amendment that are useless
,
amendments that are pointless
,
amendments that are useless
,

armed revolt declaration of independence

,
constitution of independence second amendment
,
is the 2nd amendment useless
,
second amendment useless
,

the second amendment is useless

,
what amendment 2 is useless
,
why is the second amendment useless
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors