Members banned from this thread: Mister D and The Booman |
Standing Wolf (04-09-2021)
MisterVeritis (04-09-2021),MMC (04-09-2021)
Not according to a Former District Judge and now Sheriff. James Albert Greensburg. Nor others.
Sovereignty 101: Why the Second Amendment is absolute (the short version).....
the Founders of this country defeated abuse of process as much as they defeated an army and a single person as the Sovereign. They learned from misery and tyranny what NOT to do. One thing was within their power, and that was to make certain things absolute. All they need do was declare it at the nation's inception, and they did; It rests in the words of art 'shall not be infringed.' How's that for Original intent?
Shall not are words d'art, and in law, when interpreting what the founders made for themselves and for posterity in original intent, we summon the language in framing-era terms. Shall is itself a legal term of some generations of Black Letter law. We do not interpret the law of the nation's inception in 2009 terms to suit political correctness or change, but in the wisdom of the framing-era experience and what they defeated, what they foresaw would recur in every coming generation, and how to prevent it. The Founders learned a lot, and the hard way. This is the purpose of the Second Amendment: to be independent of the foibles of our servants. Servants are hired to serve the sovereign in a nation of self-rule, not pure rule by the servants.
Today, we say that the Second Amendment protects all our other rights. I have said for years that in every generation, the health of the Second Amendment reflects the overall health of the nation, because it is either respected for its language of shall not be infringed, or it is not, and subtle infringements by the thousands mean that it is not. It is no wonder that government becomes more daring, more hostile to our way of life, more vicious to patriotism and matches it all with more gun control measures.
As gun control goes, so goes the nation. Or haven't you noticed the collateral procession of the two over time?
The Founders met this very same kind of abuses of due process in warrants and other abuses in need of citizen oversight. When they crafted the nation, when they finally debated everything out and arrived at what they would declare and pledge of themselves, it was that the citizen was to be the sovereign and that, as such, only the sovereign would have the monopoly on all lethal force. This was as it should be. Every nation's sovereign has the monopoly on lethal force. Other nations do not have the Constitution and its first ten amendments we have.
As gun control goes, so goes the nation.
The Second Amendment is absolute because it is the everyman lethal force which backs the totality of our sovereign authority in this country, and, short of another amendment, it is impervious to ordinary due process. Until that very hour it is replaced, the Second Amendment is absolute, because it must be. It is not open to debate, and just because it is debated doesn’t change the truth of the framing-era original intent. It merely proves how it is genuinely necessary to the security of a free state always, and on whose say so, namely ours.
But the absoluteness of the Second Amendment can and does serve freedom and justice for all. 2A was written to be absolute by the Founders who experienced precisely what we are experiencing today and every generation. The real problem some have with the existence of an armed citizenry is in accepting that things have come to this. Whose fault is that?
The only way that all other rights are even protected at all is by dint of the truth that the Second Amendment is not supposed to be infringed. But then, it is infringed, and as gun control goes, so goes the nation.
Just as important is the one truth that as gun rights and our sovereign authority go, so also goes the nation.....snip~
Sovereignty 101: Why the Second Amendment is absolute (the short version) | Buckeye Firearms Association
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Cletus (04-09-2021),MisterVeritis (04-09-2021)
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment......snip~
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Peter1469 (04-09-2021)
It is never ever as black and white as you guys think. Your sheriff is wrong. Courts will follow well-established case law - whether we like it or not. Our job is to push back and try to move the needle - not to stomp our feet and scream "unfair".
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes
Standing Wolf (04-09-2021)
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
DGUtley (04-09-2021)
Some are simply melting down over the words President Biden spoke because it was President Biden who spoke them. Again, what he said was not wrong - even though the measures he intends to try to force may be wrong-headed.
The Second Amendment speaks of keeping and bearing arms - or we might say owning and carrying, without affecting the meaning. Yet there are many good and necessary limits on that right in the law - any one of which would logically negate the Second Amendment's being considered to be "absolute". Having said that, any proposal to add to those laws needs to be reasonable and to relate in some rational manner to the problem or condition it purports to address.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment......snip~
There wont be any stomping of the feet. The sheriff former District Judge isnt wrong. The 2nd is Absolute. They may change what type of weapons. But they wont be getting rid of the 2nd until they rip up the Constitution and Change the type of Government the Country has.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~