I've already told you that I'm not arguing from that point, there has been
tons of bad law, bad precedence.  To find the root of this argument we have
to look at what the founders intended, not politicians that perverted it
100 and more years later.

Also you once again completely ignored the supremacy clause.

Not to mention you can go back and find the right to be armed ensconced in
English Common Law, which of course the Brits have ignored and done away
with mainly (only 1 clause of the magna carta remains in effect).

You're looking for reasons here.


On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > They also wanted us to be able to overthrow the government as necessary,
> > more so than defense from outside forces.  They wanted the government to
> > quite literally fear us.
> >
> > We're talking about the bill of rights here, all of which are about the
> > people, the individuals.
> >
>
> You're missing a subtle but KEY distinction ... The Bill of Rights was
> for all that you say - I totally agree.  So here's the "but":
>
> it's mechanism to grant was NOT universal legislation.  Its mechanism
> was simply to PREVENT FEDERAL LAW from applying to those items ... not
> to give you the citizen anything (except for preventing the feds
> legislating on these topics).  It's subtle but extremely important.
>
> Do you know how I know I'm right?
>
> If the Bill of Rights *was* a document written for you the citizen
> (and not simply as curbs on the Feds) then we wouldn't need some
> loosey-goosey interpretation from the 14th from 130 years later to
> justify applying these federal curbs to the states.
>
> -----------------------------------
> From Wiki on the 14th:
> -----------------------------------
>
> * Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from
> depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps
> being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most
> of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to
> recognize substantive and procedural rights.
>
> * Incorporation is the legal doctrine by which the Bill of Rights,
> either in full or in part, is applied to the states through the
> Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The basis for incorporation
> is substantive due process regarding substantive rights enumerated
> elsewhere in the Constitution, and procedural due process regarding
> procedural rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.[24]
> Incorporation started in 1897 with a takings case,[25] continued with
> Gitlow v. New York (1925), which was a First Amendment case, and ...
>
> Check this out:
>
> * ...and accelerated in the 1940s and 1950s. Justice Hugo Black
> famously favored the jot-for-jot incorporation of the entire Bill of
> Rights. Justice Felix Frankfurter, however曜oined later by Justice
> John M. Harlan庸elt that the federal courts should only apply those
> sections of the Bill of Rights that were "fundamental to a scheme of
> ordered liberty." It was the latter course that the Warren Court of
> the 1960s took, although, almost all of the Bill of Rights has now
> been incorporated jot-for-jot against the states.
>
> So here's your gun rights hero:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warr
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:358517
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to