Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If we don't focus on the mentally ill how are background checks supposed to work? [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)67. Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context --
In addition the Justices held that the Second Amendment restricts only the powers of the national government, and that it does not restrict private citizens from denying other citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right in the Bill of Rights. The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." Their ruling was that citizens must look to "municipal legislation" when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
Emphasis mine.
Of course, the case you're citing is where racists, as private citizens acting under their own power, attempted to deny blacks their 2A rights. The majority opinion you cite states quite plainly that the majority believes the 2A prohibits only the government from infringing on the RKBA but citizens can infringe upon citizens.
It's hard to see how you think this opinion bolsters your contention about gun control when it declares Congress cannot infringe. I'm curious to know why you make common cause with a USSC decision that paved the way for --
African Americans in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments dominated by white Democratic legislatures; neither the legislatures, law enforcement or the courts worked to protect freedmen.[9] As Democrats regained power in the late 1870s, they struggled to suppress black voting through intimidation and fraud at the polls. Paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts acted on behalf of the Democrats to suppress black voting. From 1890 to 1908, 10 of the 11 former Confederate states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments,[10] with provisions for poll taxes,[11] residency requirements, literacy tests,[11] and grandfather clauses that effectively disfranchised most black voters and many poor white people. The disfranchisement also meant that black people could not serve on juries or hold any political office, which were restricted to voters; those who could not vote were excluded from the political system.
The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.
The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.
A legacy every gun grabber can be proud of.
So, you thinking about starting a private paramilitary group to deny people their 2A rights? Because obviously Congress can't.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
99 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If we don't focus on the mentally ill how are background checks supposed to work? [View all]
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
OP
On the contrary, every time there is a spree killer numerous laws have failed.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#10
"Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency of gun violence."
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#88
I'm all for regulating guns based on the amount of hot lead that comes out of the barrel per second.
backscatter712
Oct 2015
#68
Kids who accidentally kill other kids with guns are not mentally ill...their Parents are. Not every
kelliekat44
Oct 2015
#45
As someone with a "mental illness" I take powerful meds for, I find your post highly offensive.
hunter
Oct 2015
#8
Because self-defense is a right and the misuse and abuse by others does not abrogate those rights.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#26
I do not concede. Plenty of Controllers demand people be disarmed up to and including
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#39
No one claims private nuclear bombs are a practical means of self-defense.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#41
I read it, Ms. Pomposity. I'll still take the obvious meaning of the Constitution (nt)
HERVEPA
Oct 2015
#63
The obvious meaning of the constitution that since the militia supplies its own arms
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#64
Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context --
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#67
So what you're saying is, by your own rules, if you don't support reinstating Prohibition
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#80
No. No, it's not. You can try to pretend the analogy is not apt but there is no argument you
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#83
Enjoy your gun stuff for the next week. I'm off dancing in a gun-free zone with non-gunners.
HERVEPA
Oct 2015
#94
The Controllers hit bottom years ago when they started cheering violence against gun owners
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#27
Is it the fact some Controllers have violent ideations or my temerity in pointing out the fact?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#36
Congratulations, you're a sucker for the old NRA right-wing manipulation.
backscatter712
Oct 2015
#11
How does misuse and abuse by one person abrogate the rights of another?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#25
You can no more keep guns from everyone than you can keep drugs from everyone.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#35
the Columbine kids got their guns because no backround checks- end straw purchases!
bettyellen
Oct 2015
#30
but they happen more often when they can get away with no paperwork- she would not have done it
bettyellen
Oct 2015
#49
So, returning to the OP. How would UBCs matter unless the mentally ill were ID'ed and
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#51
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need more mental health services- and
bettyellen
Oct 2015
#52
You can look a million places for good proposals on gun regulations- why pretend you need me?
bettyellen
Oct 2015
#56
I've seen lots of proposals undet the guise of "common sense" that would have no bearing while
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#59
Japan, which recognizes no RKBA, has a suicide rate that dwarfs our own. People need help
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#77
If only any other country in the world had to deal with mental illness ...
LannyDeVaney
Oct 2015
#85
Mass killings by the dangerously mentally ill don't just happen in America, i.e. Andreas Lubitz
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#86