Individual right?

[The Rabbi]

You seem to be condoning/supporting the individual states practice of regulating firearms. What is your logic for that position?

First, understand that my view of "rights" is very narrow.
Second, understand that I do not agree that "right" is the same as "unrestricted right." There are no rights which are unrestricted. Tennessee's constitution explicitly permits firearms ownership but also explicitly gives the state legislature powers to regulate. I dont see that as a problem.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Rabbi: So the 9th and 10th Amendments mean nothing to you? What other Rights are you willing to have restricited then? Can a State limit what kind of religion you pratice? Can they pass legislation allowing them to search your house when ever they want to?

Aren't you confusing the United States with Europe?

 

[Art Eatman]

The writers of the Second Amendment did not see it as an unrestricted right. Discussion in the "Anti-Federalist Papers" indicated restricting possession against those "of unsound mind" and of "ill repute". I assume that in today's terms we'd take that to mean the insane and the felons...

Art

 

[The Rabbi]

Can a State limit what kind of religion you pratice?

They already do. You'll have to do better than that.

 

[SteveS]

No, I believe I am correct in that the BOR was originally set up to limit the powers of the federal government, not the state governments.

The Tenth Amendment says, 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.

This says we, the people, get the leftovers after the states. Historically, the states had a great deal of power to regulate all sorts of things. Over the years, the feds have usurped much of this power.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Art: Yes. And through due process of law, those people can be incarcerated or institutionalized. The danger of having such people allowed to roam free in society was considered minor compared to having everyone disarmed.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I believe I am correct in that the BOR was originally set up to limit the powers of the federal government, not the state governments.

I think you are correct, SteveS. It was not until the 14thA that the BOR was applied to the states.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

They already do.

And you see this as a good thing?

 

[Harve Curry]

I believe this is the correct version and punctuation. If you check several books you'll find different versions and some words capitalized:
2nd Amendment

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.

When read this way it is plain to understand what the author was saying, that we need a trained (well regulated) militia, the militia is comprised of the people, and those people not in the militia (being the general population) have a right to firearms. The general topic of the sentence alludes to defense and war, not hunting, but hunting cannot be ruled out by it either. The media, newspapers, reporters and various authors in the last 200+ years have altered the original punctuation and capitalized words that should not have been.

 

[The Rabbi]

And you see this as a good thing?

It's largely irrelevant whether I see it as good or bad. But that is the case, so your argument for unrestricted rights fails.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

This says we, the people, get the leftovers after the states. Historically, the states had a great deal of power to regulate all sorts of things. Over the years, the feds have usurped much of this power.

Wrong. That means that anything not prohibited, like infringing on our Second Amendment Rights, was left to the States. Like traffic laws and zoning. Yes, the Feds have overstepped their bounds. So have the States.

Look up "unalienable" some time. Or are you one of those who has a vested interest in maintaining, or heaven forbid, expanding the status quo?

Me. I want my Rights back. A Right isn't a Right if you have to ask permission. Either we acknowledge these Rights as they were intended by the Founders, or we stop pretending to be a society of Freedom and Indivuduals.

Are you ready for that kind of admission? Is it what you are really after?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Tennessee's constitution explicitly permits firearms ownership but also explicitly gives the state legislature powers to regulate. I dont see that as a problem.

OK. Then you don't view the BOR as absolutes, rather a list of guidelines, or suggestions? States are free to legislate/regulate/limit any and all of the restrictions placed on government by the BOR?

I'm just trying to understand your operating principle here, or whether it is an arbitrary opinion you hold.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

It's largely irrelevant whether I see it as good or bad. But that is the case, so your argument for unrestricted rights fails.

It's only restricted because We the People don't stand up to our government any more. Defeatism like yours is probably why. You couldn't care less about your Rights, so why should you give a toss about anyone elses?

"May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any legal theory to back this up? Or are you just going to spout off about "inalienable rights" and "the Founders' intent" and other catch phrases? Those arent arguments but noise.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. Then you don't view the BOR as absolutes, rather a list of guidelines, or suggestions? States are free to legislate/regulate/limit any and all of the restrictions placed on government by the BOR?

Not just the states but the Feds as well.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Those arent arguments but noise.

Not since the New Deal. That was pretty much when we tossed our Constitutional Republic out the window and started on our path of Democracy.

If you consider the plain language of the very document that is supposed to be the founding basis for our Republic "noise", then there is no use talking to you.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Not just the states but the Feds as well.

So now you are saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to anyone?

Are you on drugs?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Feds and the states have regulated every right in the BOR. This has been upheld more often than not by the Supreme Court or by state courts. I'm sorry this disturbs you.

If you consider the plain language of the very document that is supposed to be the founding basis for our Republic "noise", then there is no use talking to you.

If you dont consider that there is more than just your opinion of the plain words on the page to an understanding of the Constitution then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Rabbi, you're gonna have to explain why you think the founding principles of this country, as exemplified in the BOR and other documents is somehow subject to alteration. You're not suggesting the constitution is a 'living document' and must be amended to suit the times, are you?

 

[The Rabbi]

It isnt a matter of whether I think so or not. That's how it is.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If you think I have no individual right to keep and bear arms, come on over to my house and try to take them away.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you think I have no individual right to keep and bear arms, come on over to my house and try to take them away.

ROFLMAO!!!

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Food for thought.

Actually, guys, I think RIGHTS *ARE* granted and enforced by governments. (Those Catholics and some would-be lawyers among us will argue that NATURAL RIGHTS also exist. But those "natural rights" are intellectual constructs with no power of enforcement; thinking they exist doesn't mean they have any power to change what you do or is done to you.)

Freedoms are what we're really talking about, and Freedoms (to do and act as you please) exist outside the control of government.

If you live in the wilderness, you are free to do as you please. When you're free, you don't have a right to do as you please, nor do you need a right to do so.

The term RIGHT implies a social context and social rules, and rights always seem to exist in that social context, which has vying objectives, limited resources, etc.

Can you name a RIGHT that exists without, ultimately, government (or your community) to enforce it? I can't.

Rights are based on an implied or stated social contract.

Can you name a right that government can't take away through some "due process"? Can you name a right that can't be taken away by someone bigger or more powerful?

Tell the black man who was lynched, not too many years ago, that he had the right to life. Tell the American citizens of Japanese descent that they were free to go, and not stay in those crappy concentration camps. Tell them their right to own property wasn't taken away when they lost everything they owned but what they could carry with them.

If your rights are taken or lost, government or someone even bigger may get whats taken away from you, for you, and give it back. May.

We live in a social context, and RIGHTS are a function of that context.

Freedoms are better, but freedoms are always at risk when other people are around.

If this analysis is correct, its pretty darned important that WE WORK to make sure government reinforces our rights, and doesn't infringe on our freedoms.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states...



The BIll of Rights doesn't apply to the Feds

Then what is the point of having it.....Is it time yet :banghead:

 

[The Rabbi]

Then what is the point of having it.....Is it time yet

Please lay out in detail how you plan to overthrow the government. Then we'll be right behind you as you claim freedom of speech.