View Single Post
Old February 2nd, 2013, 10:23 AM   #130 (permalink)
andrdhillbilly
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Exclamation History as a teacher....

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: 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.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: 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.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...

I basically agree with your response, and would add some points that further strengthen it:
- The few with the courage and integrity to actually study the history of this nation know that the founders understood all too well the risks of a strong central gov't, having come from countries that trampled on the rights of individual citizens and municipalities. This included areas such as religion, commerce, and self-defense, as evidenced by specific prohibition against the federal gov't 'infringing' on rights in those arenas.
- Further, knowing the context, it seems obvious that the 2nd amendment intends to clarify/reinforce such prohibitions on the assumption of federal power, recognizing that state and local military capability (organized as 'militias' at that time) was key to defense on two levels: preventing the fed from infringing upon rights intended for the states, AND protecting the entire republic from outside enemies. The latter was key to winning the Revolutionary War, something we would do well to remember.
- A federal law that infringes is unconstitutional today, regardless of how long it has been on the books/in practice. States failing to stand up and fight, or failing to recognize the infringement potential in a new federal statute at the time, does not take away their right to defend what was clearly delegated to them in the Constitution.
- In the past 50 years, Americans have become complacent, with too many looking to the federal gov't only for help. This new society, with its self-centered focus, has lost track of what it costs to give up freedom, and was helped along by a school system that stopped teaching about the hardships our ancestors faced in their countries of origin, which molded the basis for this new republic.
- Now, we vote for representatives based on who will give us what we want for free, rather than reps who will fight to ensure that we ARE free.
- Legislation has become politics, pandering for votes. Otherwise, we would actually ENFORCE (and occasionally tweak) the laws we already have and move on.
andrdhillbilly is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to andrdhillbilly For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (February 4th, 2013)