XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Leif" wrote in message
news:1190350239.801749.170240@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 6:44 pm, the heekster wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:55:08 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> >"RSweeney" wrote in
>> >news:HeSdnf24Zt97m3LbnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>> >> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
>>
>> >>> The Second Amendment is a militia amendment. What would you expect?
>> >>> It is not about hunting or sport shooting.
>>
>> >> Actually I would disagree.
>>
>> >> Among the first to call for the second amendment was the state of
>> >> Pennsylvania's dissenting Constitutional Convention delegates whose
>> >> approval debate specifically called for a bill of rights including the
>> >> right to keep and "bear arms" for a number of reasons, including
>> >> hunting and self-defense.
>>
>> >> This dissent was widely published, widely debated. As such it is in
>> >> the direct line of the creation of the second amendment, whose
>> >> wording, while emphasizing the criticality of gun rights upon a free
>> >> militia, does nothing to limit those rights to the militia use.
>>
>> >My point was that militia service for the protection of state
>> >sovereignty
>> >was the main reason for the Second Amendment, not the RKBA itself which
>> >is a a separate topic. The 2A does not grant RKBA in any shape or form.
>> >It (currently) only protects that right from federal interference.
>>
>> Representative John A Bingham (R Ohio), in a speech to the House, said
>> that the 14th amendment explicitly applies the prohibitions of the
>> first 8 amendments to the states.
>
> Leif speaking: In fact, the 14th Amendment does not "explicitly" say
> anything about the first 8 amendments. It's doubful that the
> amendment would have been ratified by the states if it had. And so
> the rights that have been made applicable against the states have come
> one at a time via U.S. Supreme Court decisions under the "due
> process" clause of the 14th.
Sorry, the "due process" clause has to do with the abridgement of rights as
a result of conviction for crime. It has NOTHING to do with the application
of the protection of right's to the people.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; "
That is the clause that states the protections shall apply and that the
states can have no legislation that violates these rights.
>>
>> He ought to have known.
>>
>> He drafted the amendment.
>
>
>>
>> I strongly suspect that amendment 2 is included in the first 8,
>> regardless of what some asinine judge or group of judges says.
>>
>> It was obvious from contemporary writings that the intent was to
>> ensure that the freed men, the Negroes, had the guarantees of the
>> first 8 amendments, and the right to keep and bear arms was one of the
>> more important ones that the black codes attempted to disfranchise.
>>
>> I doubt that militia was foremost in Bingham's mind when he drafted
>> the 14th amendment. While historically, militia was one of the
>> reasons for the 2nd amendment, it was not the only reason for it. Had
>> Congress been a little more open-minded, the amendment submitted for
>> ratification may have had a third clause, regarding conscientious
>> objectors.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
