You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #38: You have it exactly backwards [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. You have it exactly backwards
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 06:19 PM by TPaine7
The Second Amendment expressly omits such a right, and the Fourteenth Amendment in no way changes that.


The Bill of Rights does not "expressly omit" rights. It expressly forbids government meddling in certain areas. You are operating yet again from the false premise that the government "grants" rights.

Even if it were true that the Second Amendment granted rights to states to have militias while "expressly omitting" a personal RKBA, the Fourteenth Amendment would have changed that. You see, the non-personal bearing of arms took place in state militias. But the Fourteenth Amendment expressly gave Congress the authority to enforce the RKBA against the states. It is impossible to enforce a "states right" against the state. Hence, after the Fourteenth Amendment at the very least, RKBA is not a collective states right.

And the case that has sometimes been made that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to join a constitutional militia is simply revisionism.

But I notice that you are carefully avoiding several pertinent issues.

1) The fact that the language of the 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes the "privileges and immunities" of individual citizens, one of which is clearly the right to keep and bear arms.
2) The fact that the Framers of the amendment explicitly said that the Amendment enforced the individual's RKBA against the states
3) The fact that your source clearly supports the above.

Would you care to address any of these facts directly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Lets Assume that Heller was Wrongly Decided TPaine7  Jun-13-09 05:05 AM   #0 
  - There is no RKBA by persons, only a bonafide militia so Heller was mistaken. All states can ban any  cabluedem   Jun-13-09 05:19 AM   #1 
  - I understand your policy preferences, but...  TPaine7   Jun-13-09 05:23 AM   #2 
  - Obama would likely sign such an  pipoman   Jun-13-09 07:12 AM   #3 
  - So you are correcting the U.S. Supreme court.  Tim01   Jun-13-09 07:51 AM   #4 
  - Dred Scott.  Davis_X_Machina   Jun-13-09 09:15 AM   #5 
  - Actually it almost never happens unless there's a gross injustice.  TheWraith   Jun-15-09 02:29 PM   #77 
  - Bush vs. Gore?  Euromutt   Jun-13-09 02:12 PM   #14 
  - Self Delete  TPaine7   Jun-13-09 06:40 PM   #22 
  - On militias.  gorfle   Jun-13-09 09:51 AM   #6 
  - For anyone doing any reading on the subject it is very clear (of course antis don't like history)  Statistical   Jun-13-09 11:01 AM   #7 
  - Changing the definition of "militia" to suit your wish does not change  Hoopla Phil   Jun-13-09 11:31 AM   #10 
  - and if they said  paulsby   Jun-13-09 01:52 PM   #12 
     - I think that is what I said. lol  Hoopla Phil   Jun-13-09 06:03 PM   #19 
  - And many will ignore the order  michreject   Jun-13-09 12:50 PM   #11 
  - You contradict yourself.  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-13-09 03:02 PM   #17 
  - your arguement is an originalist one  bossy22   Jun-13-09 04:33 PM   #18 
  - It isn't even an originalist view.  Statistical   Jun-13-09 08:06 PM   #23 
  - "Assault weapons" are not weapons of war  rl6214   Jun-13-09 06:31 PM   #20 
  - You are wrong in SO many ways, it's not even funny.  TheWraith   Jun-15-09 02:22 PM   #76 
  - Interesting take on the issue..  X_Digger   Jun-13-09 11:11 AM   #8 
  - Heller WAS correctly decided. Just look at all the reasons provided  Hoopla Phil   Jun-13-09 11:30 AM   #9 
  - Hold up.. deeper point  X_Digger   Jun-13-09 01:52 PM   #13 
     - Exactly. N/T  TPaine7   Jun-13-09 02:21 PM   #15 
     - To clarify  TPaine7   Jun-13-09 06:35 PM   #21 
        - You got it exactly right.  Statistical   Jun-13-09 08:12 PM   #24 
  - Where are the usual suspects?  TPaine7   Jun-13-09 02:25 PM   #16 
  - settled law  thread-bear   Jun-13-09 09:59 PM   #25 
  - Individual? Yes.  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 04:00 AM   #26 
  - What? A 5-4 decision of the Roberts Court wrongly decided? You must be joking  jgraz   Jun-14-09 12:59 PM   #27 
  - lol. you are sad. not sure which is worse your reinvention of the 2nd or the 14th.  Statistical   Jun-14-09 01:32 PM   #28 
  - Wow, since you said so, it must be right  jgraz   Jun-14-09 01:55 PM   #29 
     - US? What US?  Statistical   Jun-14-09 02:13 PM   #30 
        - "Your (sic) the only one clinging to this outdated belief system"  jgraz   Jun-14-09 03:31 PM   #31 
           - Well that is a step in the right direction....  Statistical   Jun-14-09 04:10 PM   #33 
           - It's only a step in you understanding what I've been saying from day one  jgraz   Jun-14-09 05:31 PM   #36 
           - I'm glad you and Stevens agree militia members can keep and bear arms  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-14-09 05:11 PM   #35 
              - You're forgetting that pesky "well-regulated" bit.  jgraz   Jun-14-09 05:34 PM   #37 
                 - oh come on...  Statistical   Jun-14-09 07:31 PM   #43 
                    - Absolutely incorrect  jgraz   Jun-14-09 10:43 PM   #53 
                       - Not supported by any evidence.... don't need to go far.  Statistical   Jun-14-09 10:55 PM   #54 
                          - Um... your two examples are identical  jgraz   Jun-14-09 11:33 PM   #55 
                             - Hamilton also said it would only be reasonable to assemble them 2x a year  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-14-09 11:55 PM   #56 
                             - Yes, because the intention was to avoid a professional standing army  jgraz   Jun-15-09 09:58 AM   #66 
                                - You are free to give it another look  Statistical   Jun-15-09 12:29 PM   #68 
                             - Oops. msg board replaced the brackets.  Statistical   Jun-15-09 12:09 AM   #58 
  - So let me see...  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 04:02 PM   #32 
  - Once again, the question is about an individual RKBA for personal use  jgraz   Jun-14-09 04:52 PM   #34 
     - You have it exactly backwards  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 05:34 PM   #38 
        - I don't think so  jgraz   Jun-14-09 07:06 PM   #41 
        - Wow  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 08:32 PM   #44 
           - Your Miller citation  jgraz   Jun-15-09 12:01 AM   #57 
              - So glad you brought this up.  Statistical   Jun-15-09 12:27 AM   #59 
              - I'm going to take issue with one minor point here  Euromutt   Jun-15-09 05:17 AM   #60 
              - Good point.  Statistical   Jun-15-09 07:01 AM   #62 
              - The Miller case dealt with a law about weapons, not people  jgraz   Jun-15-09 09:38 AM   #63 
                 - No the WEAPON must have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a militia.  Statistical   Jun-15-09 01:16 PM   #71 
              - Wow  TPaine7   Jun-15-09 12:35 PM   #69 
                 - You may have unlimited time to respond to your own thread. I don't  jgraz   Jun-15-09 01:09 PM   # 
                    - I did ask in good faith. Your citation has no logical relationship to either  TPaine7   Jun-15-09 01:24 PM   #72 
                       - You mean if I'm rejected by the National Guard because of my race, I can't sue?  jgraz   Jun-15-09 01:32 PM   #75 
                          - I knew you would go there.  TPaine7   Jun-15-09 03:45 PM   #79 
                          - You may already BE in the militia. The NG is only the 'organized' part of it  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-15-09 09:51 PM   #81 
        - Bingo...We have a winner.  beevul   Jun-16-09 12:20 AM   #83 
  - wrong jgraz . . .  Will E Orwontee   Jun-14-09 06:50 PM   #40 
     - Many things were proposed for the amendment, including stripping citizenship from Native Americans  jgraz   Jun-14-09 08:33 PM   #45 
        - Right after the part where it says  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 08:39 PM   #46 
        - Free speech and firearms are not the same thing  jgraz   Jun-14-09 08:47 PM   #47 
           - No two rights are the same, and the restrictions on no two right  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 09:00 PM   #49 
              - And who was the one drawing bad analogies to the First Amendment?  jgraz   Jun-14-09 10:29 PM   #51 
                 - No analogy needed.  TPaine7   Jun-15-09 11:58 AM   #67 
        - This is not a "crazy-ass idea floated by the Senate"  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 08:48 PM   #48 
        - Show me where either amendment says "for personal use"  jgraz   Jun-14-09 10:31 PM   #52 
           - Where have I heard that "reasoning" before?  Euromutt   Jun-15-09 06:21 AM   #61 
           - In this case, it's relevant. The Second Amendment was an attempt to avoid standing armies  jgraz   Jun-15-09 09:53 AM   #64 
              - No more than the Fourth is null and void...  Euromutt   Jun-15-09 07:50 PM   #80 
           - You claimed that this is not personal use:  TPaine7   Jun-15-09 01:09 PM   #70 
              - In case you're not yet clear on this: it's the fucking DRED SCOTT decision  jgraz   Jun-15-09 01:28 PM   #73 
                 - You are very confused  TPaine7   Jun-15-09 03:12 PM   #78 
                    - No, I've been trying to be tolerant of your "reasoning"  jgraz   Jun-15-09 10:24 PM   #82 
                       - And we've been tolerant of your misrepresentation of what YOUR sources actually say  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-16-09 12:42 AM   #84 
                       - That's just sad, jgraz  TPaine7   Jun-16-09 10:06 AM   #86 
        - fundamental mistake of anti-liberty folks . . .  Will E Orwontee   Jun-14-09 09:26 PM   #50 
           - fundamental mistake of newbies on DU...  jgraz   Jun-15-09 09:55 AM   #65 
              - Sorry . . .  Will E Orwontee   Jun-15-09 01:28 PM   #74 
              - That's the 'genetic fallacy', not a reply  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-16-09 01:20 AM   #85 
  - The right secured by the 2nd can't . . .  Will E Orwontee   Jun-14-09 06:30 PM   #39 
     - "The right secured by the 2nd can't be a right of the states . . . "  TPaine7   Jun-14-09 07:10 PM   #42 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC