Baltimore District Court gun ruling

[haymarket]

can you actually point to any language in the constitution that supports the statist garbage you have concocted based on twisting words, making unfounded assumptions and just plain ignoring reality

Just as I figured.... you are unable to answer any of those questions to prove that your belief has an actual historical foundation. And that reveals TRUTH in 1,000 foot high letters with huge spotlights upon it.

But I will indulge you and give you a second chance Turtle.

You want us to believe that the Founders would never have allowed incremental steps by government to regulate the ownership and use of firearms that you believe constitute INFRINGEMENTS. Okay. Lets go with that.

So lets look at this "known belief system of the founders" that you believe would have prevented them from doing anything to regulate firearms.

Can you demonstrate to this board that the 55 men who wrote the Constitution believed that weapons should be owned and used by citizens without any interference, without any control and without any law of any kind from the government?

And can you demonstrate that these same 55 men viewed bearing of arms as an individual right apart and distinct from the defense of the community?

And can you then demonstrate that this defense using arms is not merely an ability of real life in a hostile and new land rather than some "natural right" that cannot be touched or regulated?

You have to demonstrate all these things for your belief to have any actual valid foundation. And I do not believe it does. Its merely something you have adopted as a defense mechanism to avoid facing reality and a serious conflict with your own self imposed ideology and politics.

this list will help you

Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History

Lets see if the wall you have built actually contains the bricks you believe it does.

 

[TurtleDude]

They did. You find it in the same places in the US Constitution that I have told you about at least fifty times already.

But what good does that do when your political agenda overrides plain English causing you to adopt intentional denial so you can cling to your extremist goals?

do you honestly claim that Article I Sec 8 delegates that power to the federal government? that is one of the most specious statements I have seen-way up there with "shall not be infringed" means that infringements were intended

 

[haymarket]

do you honestly claim that Article I Sec 8 delegates that power to the federal government? that is one of the most specious statements I have seen-way up there with "shall not be infringed" means that infringements were intended

You offer no evidence otherwise.

 

[TurtleDude]

Just as I figured.... you are unable to answer any of those questions to prove that your belief has an actual historical foundation. And that reveals TRUTH in 1,000 foot high letters with huge spotlights upon it.

But I will indulge you and give you a second chance Turtle.

You want us to believe that the Founders would never have allowed incremental steps by government to regulate the ownership and use of firearms that you believe constitute INFRINGEMENTS. Okay. Lets go with that.

So lets look at this "known belief system of the founders" that you believe would have prevented them from doing anything to regulate firearms.

Can you demonstrate to this board that the 55 men who wrote the Constitution believed that weapons should be owned and used by citizens without any interference, without any control and without any law of any kind from the government?

And can you demonstrate that these same 55 men viewed bearing of arms as an individual right apart and distinct from the defense of the community?

And can you then demonstrate that this defense using arms is not merely an ability of real life in a hostile and new land rather than some "natural right" that cannot be touched or regulated?

You have to demonstrate all these things for your belief to have any actual valid foundation. And I do not believe it does. Its merely something you have adopted as a defense mechanism to avoid facing reality and a serious conflict with your own self imposed ideology and politics.

this list will help you

Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History

Lets see if the wall you have built actually contains the bricks you believe it does.

Lets keep this honest rather than engaging in the dishonest jumping from state government authority vs that of a limited federal government.

the founders never intended the federal government to have the power to dictate what sort of firearms citizens could own in their private capacity or to regulate time use manner of such firearms ownership. That was a power that the founders clearly intended the several states to have. The federal government was not given the proper power to regulate stuff that the several states clearly had the 10A power to do.

AND IT IS DISHONEST For you to suggest (given my hundreds of posts explaining state powers to regulate time place and manner concerning the usage of firearms) to suggest I believe that NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY had any proper power to do so

so stop the moronic straw men and stop the dishonest depictions of my argument

 

[TurtleDude]

You offer no evidence otherwise.

you make a statement that everyone on this board who has addressed it finds laughably pathetic and you demand we refute your baseless specious claim

LOL

 

[haymarket]

Lets keep this honest

Yes - I agree. I am trying to see it your way and understand your argument. So I asked you a series of questions but you have not answered them. So I ask you again in the hopes that you can answer them this time and I can appreciate your argument once answered.

You want us to believe that the Founders would never have allowed incremental steps by government to regulate the ownership and use of firearms that you believe constitute INFRINGEMENTS. Okay. Lets go with that.

So lets look at this "known belief system of the founders" that you believe would have prevented them from doing anything to regulate firearms.

Can you demonstrate to this board that the 55 men who wrote the Constitution believed that weapons should be owned and used by citizens without any interference, without any control and without any law of any kind from the government? Even the federal government?

And can you demonstrate that these same 55 men viewed bearing of arms as an individual right apart and distinct from the defense of the community?

And can you then demonstrate that this defense using arms is not merely an ability of real life in a hostile and new land rather than some "natural right" that cannot be touched or regulated?

You have to demonstrate all these things for your belief to have any actual valid foundation. And I do not believe it does. Its merely something you have adopted as a defense mechanism to avoid facing reality and a serious conflict with your own self imposed ideology and politics.

this list will help you

Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History

Lets see if the wall you have built actually contains the bricks you believe it does.

 

[haymarket]

you make a statement that everyone on this board who has addressed it finds laughably pathetic and you demand we refute your baseless specious claim

LOL

Then all you have to do is produce this evidence that EVERYONE else knows about. That should be very easy and you should have a long list of possible helpers if you can stop laughing long enough. But you never ever seem to do that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes - I agree. I am trying to see it your way and understand your argument. So I asked you a series of questions but you have not answered them. So I ask you again in the hopes that you can answer them this time and I can appreciate your argument once answered.

You want us to believe that the Founders would never have allowed incremental steps by government to regulate the ownership and use of firearms that you believe constitute INFRINGEMENTS. Okay. Lets go with that.

So lets look at this "known belief system of the founders" that you believe would have prevented them from doing anything to regulate firearms.

Can you demonstrate to this board that the 55 men who wrote the Constitution believed that weapons should be owned and used by citizens without any interference, without any control and without any law of any kind from the government? Even the federal government?

And can you demonstrate that these same 55 men viewed bearing of arms as an individual right apart and distinct from the defense of the community?

And can you then demonstrate that this defense using arms is not merely an ability of real life in a hostile and new land rather than some "natural right" that cannot be touched or regulated?

You have to demonstrate all these things for your belief to have any actual valid foundation. And I do not believe it does. Its merely something you have adopted as a defense mechanism to avoid facing reality and a serious conflict with your own self imposed ideology and politics.

this list will help you

Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History

Lets see if the wall you have built actually contains the bricks you believe it does.

your entire arguments on gun rights are dishonest

you pretend that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow all sorts of FEDERAL INFRINGEMENTS--that is beyond dishonest --it is pathetic

You claim that the militia clause which allows congress to arm the federal militia --ie men who have joined the federal militia after it has been mustered- also allows congress to prevent private citizens from owning certain guns even though there is nothing in that language that remotely suggests that

INCREDIBLY DISHONEST

and worst of all-you pretend that since the founders were aware of state laws that may have regulated firearm USE that means that the founders actually wanted the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE POWER to regulate small arms even though their AWARENESS that state governments acted in that area almost guaranteed that they didn't want concurrent federal jurisdiction



you are the one whose arguments fly in the face of reality

 

[haymarket]

your entire arguments on gun rights are dishonest

So educate me. I am trying to see it your way and understand your argument. So I asked you a series of questions but you have not answered them. So I ask you again in the hopes that you can answer them this time and I can appreciate your argument once answered.

You want us to believe that the Founders would never have allowed incremental steps by government to regulate the ownership and use of firearms that you believe constitute INFRINGEMENTS. Okay. Lets go with that.

So lets look at this "known belief system of the founders" that you believe would have prevented them from doing anything to regulate firearms.

Can you demonstrate to this board that the 55 men who wrote the Constitution believed that weapons should be owned and used by citizens without any interference, without any control and without any law of any kind from the government? Even the federal government?

And can you demonstrate that these same 55 men viewed bearing of arms as an individual right apart and distinct from the defense of the community?

And can you then demonstrate that this defense using arms is not merely an ability of real life in a hostile and new land rather than some "natural right" that cannot be touched or regulated?

You have to demonstrate all these things for your belief to have any actual valid foundation. And I do not believe it does. Its merely something you have adopted as a defense mechanism to avoid facing reality and a serious conflict with your own self imposed ideology and politics.

this list will help you

Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History

Lets see if the wall you have built actually contains the bricks you believe it does.

 

[matchlight]

your entire arguments on gun rights are dishonest

you pretend that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow all sorts of FEDERAL INFRINGEMENTS--that is beyond dishonest --it is pathetic

You claim that the militia clause which allows congress to arm the federal militia --ie men who have joined the federal militia after it has been mustered- also allows congress to prevent private citizens from owning certain guns even though there is nothing in that language that remotely suggests that

INCREDIBLY DISHONEST

and worst of all-you pretend that since the founders were aware of state laws that may have regulated firearm USE that means that the founders actually wanted the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE POWER to regulate small arms even though their AWARENESS that state governments acted in that area almost guaranteed that they didn't want concurrent federal jurisdiction



you are the one whose arguments fly in the face of reality

I pretty much agree. The question whether the right protected is individual, or applies only to militias, is legitimate. But I think Justice Scalia's analysis in Heller, which concludes it is an individual right, is more persuasive than the dissent's.

But the assertion that "shall not be infringed" really means "Congress may infringe" doesn't deserve any reasonable person's consideration. The argument based on the Militia Clause is also pulled out of thin air.

Your take on the argument based on the Framers' awareness of certain state restrictions on firearms is also right on the money.

 

[haymarket]

But the assertion that "shall not be infringed" really means "Congress may infringe" doesn't deserve any reasonable person's consideration. The argument based on the Militia Clause is also pulled out of thin air.

Your take on the argument based on the Framers' awareness of certain state restrictions on firearms is also right on the money.

1- actually it is based on the language in the US Constitution, Article I , Section 8, clauses 1, 15, 16 & 18 and subsequent laws passed regarding the militia.

2- Your position, like Turtles, does not make sense nor is it consistent as the very same Founders who supposedly DID NOT WANT the federal government to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms because it was a sacred natural right - are the same people who on a state level can pass all manner of laws doing just the opposite. And these are much the same folks with the same beliefs.

So the position you and Turtle end up with is that the natural right to arms is so sacred and important that the federal government cannot touch it but that same sacred natural right can be regulated all sorts of ways by states. What happened to the sacredness of it?

It makes no sense.

 

[TurtleDude]

I pretty much agree. The question whether the right protected is individual, or applies only to militias, is legitimate. But I think Justice Scalia's analysis in Heller, which concludes it is an individual right, is more persuasive than the dissent's.

But the assertion that "shall not be infringed" really means "Congress may infringe" doesn't deserve any reasonable person's consideration. The argument based on the Militia Clause is also pulled out of thin air.

Your take on the argument based on the Framers' awareness of certain state restrictions on firearms is also right on the money.

the dissent's argument is vapid and patently dishonest. Stevens, whose recent rantings suggest a complete lack of cogency, claimed that bogus appellate court decisions that were based on a completely dishonest twisting of Cruikshank should bind the USSC.

 

[TurtleDude]

1- actually it is based on the language in the US Constitution, Article I , Section 8, clauses 1, 15, 16 & 18 and subsequent laws passed regarding the militia.

2- Your position, like Turtles, does not make sense nor is it consistent as the very same Founders who supposedly DID NOT WANT the federal government to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms because it was a sacred natural right - are the same people who on a state level can pass all manner of laws doing just the opposite. And these are much the same folks with the same beliefs.

So the position you and Turtle end up with is that the natural right to arms is so sacred and important that the federal government cannot touch it but that same sacred natural right can be regulated all sorts of ways by states. What happened to the sacredness of it?

It makes no sense.

what idiocy==you reject the concept that the founders were dealing with Creating a federal government, To claim that they must have wanted FEDERAL overlapping regulation of firearms because the several states had some place and use restrictions is beyond dishonest, its blatantly falsifying the reality.

and tell me Haymarket-what state regulations existed then? bans on certain types of weapons? NO waiting periods? NO, limits on how many guns you could own? NO

stop the bald faced lying. that the several states could regulate firearms (and may have done so with time/place restrictions) does not come close to suggesting the founders wanted the federal government to have powers the several states already had and in fact it destroys your argument because the ability to regulate was already present in the existing several states so if some of the founders were worried about completely unfettered firearms use/possession by the citizenry, they knew the several states had the power under the 10A to regulate

your argument is completely bogus, dishonest and nonsensical. and your militia claims are even more silly

 

[haymarket]

what idiocy==you reject the concept that the founders were dealing with Creating a federal government, To claim that they must have wanted FEDERAL overlapping regulation of firearms because the several states had some place and use restrictions is beyond dishonest, its blatantly falsifying the reality.

Actually it only points out the "idiocy" - to use your own damning descriptor - of your own position. Your position does not make sense nor is it consistent as the very same Founders who supposedly DID NOT WANT the federal government to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms because it was a sacred natural right - are the same people who on a state level can pass all manner of laws doing just the opposite. And these are much the same folks with the same beliefs.

So the position you and Turtle end up with is that the natural right to arms is so sacred and important that the federal government cannot touch it but that same sacred natural right can be regulated all sorts of ways by states. What happened to the sacredness of it?

If you are right, and it is a sacred natural right that government should not mess with - why would they allow one level of government to do just about anything they wanted to it - in effect pissing all over your sacred "natural right to be armed" while making it verbotten for the national government to pass even the slightest "infringement" - to borrow your modernist word - against firearm ownership and use?

Where you end up makes no sense at all and defies all logic and consistency as you want us to wallow in the deliberate fiction that one level of government can do nothing while another level of government can do the opposite AND THE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS WERE WRITTEN BY SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME BELEIFS THAT YOU CLAIM THEY HAD.

and tell me Haymarket-what state regulations existed then?

You love academic law school articles and you were given one from Fordham Law which laid out many such laws. Go back and read it instead of trying to assassinate the author of it in an ad hominem attack.

You want us to believe that the Founders would never have allowed incremental steps by government to regulate the ownership and use of firearms that you believe constitute INFRINGEMENTS. Okay. Lets go with that.

So lets look at this "known belief system of the founders" that you believe would have prevented them from doing anything to regulate firearms.

Lets look at the very direct questions you have been trying furiously to avoid answering because honest answers would destroy any semblance of an argument you pretend to cling to:

Can you demonstrate to this board that the 55 men who wrote the Constitution believed that weapons should be owned and used by citizens without any interference, without any control and without any law of any kind from the government? Even the federal government?

And can you demonstrate that these same 55 men viewed bearing of arms as an individual right apart and distinct from the defense of the community?

And can you then demonstrate that this defense using arms is not merely an ability of real life in a hostile and new land rather than some "natural right" that cannot be touched or regulated?

You have to demonstrate all these things for your belief to have any actual valid foundation

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually it only points out the "idiocy" - to use your own damning descriptor - of your own position. Your position does not make sense nor is it consistent as the very same Founders who supposedly DID NOT WANT the federal government to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms because it was a sacred natural right - are the same people who on a state level can pass all manner of laws doing just the opposite. And these are much the same folks with the same beliefs.

So the position you and Turtle end up with is that the natural right to arms is so sacred and important that the federal government cannot touch it but that same sacred natural right can be regulated all sorts of ways by states. What happened to the sacredness of it?

If you are right, and it is a sacred natural right that government should not mess with - why would they allow one level of government to do just about anything they wanted to it - in effect pissing all over your sacred "natural right to be armed" while making it verbotten for the national government to pass even the slightest "infringement" - to borrow your modernist word - against firearm ownership and use?

Where you end up makes no sense at all and defies all logic and consistency as you want us to wallow in the deliberate fiction that one level of government can do nothing while another level of government can do the opposite AND THE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS WERE WRITTEN BY SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME BELEIFS THAT YOU CLAIM THEY HAD.



You love academic law school articles and you were given one from Fordham Law which laid out many such laws. Go back and read it instead of trying to assassinate the author of it in an ad hominem attack.

when you can figure out the difference between the powers the several states had versus powers a federal government that was intended to have limited and specified powers get back to me

you constantly ignore that difference and due to that ignorance, you continue to make the same specious lams

what laws did the several states have at this time concerning firearms? what laws were in STATE codes at the time?

and most importantly why would a limited federal government be given powers that would basically overlap and be redundant due to the existence of the same powers with the several states?

 

[haymarket]

when you can figure out the difference between the powers the several states had versus powers a federal government that was intended to have limited and specified powers get back to me

I see nobody here including me disputing different levels of government or powers each may hold. Take your self created strawman down from the tree and put it back in the warehouse with its brethren.

what laws did the several states have at this time concerning firearms? what laws were in STATE codes at the time?

I have previously given you one of your favorite sources of information -= a law school article from Fordham. Apparently you DID NOT READ IT or you would not have to ask the same question which was answered with a veritiable treasure trove of verifiable evidence. My advice would be for you to read it before you ask the same question again which was already answered with verifiable evidence.

and most importantly why would a limited federal government be given powers that would basically overlap and be redundant due to the existence of the same powers with the several states?

Why would they not as there are many areas of overlap? That is simply reality beyond dispute or denial. States can build roads and improvements as can the national government. States can have an armed force as well as the national government. States can levy taxes as can the national government. States can establish their own courts and the federal government can do the same. I could go on and on but the point should be obvious that there are many powers and abilities different levels of governments have which overlap and are duplicated.

The idea that there is not is simply not reality.

 

[TurtleDude]

I see nobody here including me disputing different levels of government or powers each may hold. Take your self created strawman down from the tree and put it back in the warehouse with its brethren.



I have previously given you one of your favorite sources of information -= a law school article from Fordham. Apparently you DID NOT READ IT or you would not have to ask the same question which was answered with a veritiable treasure trove of verifiable evidence. My advice would be for you to read it before you ask the same question again which was already answered with verifiable evidence.



Why would they not as there are many areas of overlap. States can build roads and improvements as can the national government. States can have an armed force as well as the national government. States can levy taxes as can the national government. States can establish their own courts and the federal government can do the same. I could go on and on but the point should be obvious that there are many powers nd abilities different levels of governments have which overlap and are duplicated.

The idea that there is not is simply not reality.

you mean the Saul Cornell nonsense where he-like you-cannot understand (or in his case lies) about the very different nature of the powers of the several states and that of a limited federal government

Your attempt to claim overlapping power is silly since your comparison is APPLES TO CINDERBLOCKS

there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the founders intended the federal government to have firearms regulatory power

and there is NOTHING in the constitution that even hints at that

 

[haymarket]

you mean the Saul Cornell nonsense where he-like you-cannot understand (or in his case lies) about the very different nature of the powers of the several states and that of a limited federal government

You wanted laws covering firearm usage and he gave it to you... page after page after page after page after page after page after page .... the fact you did not read it and reject it out of hand simply reveals your own tactics in the discussion and your complete denial to even look at anything that may prove you wrong.... and it does.

Your attempt to claim overlapping power is silly since your comparison is APPLES TO CINDERBLOCKS

Actually it is called REALITY and has nothing to do with fruit nor building materials.

there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the founders intended the federal government to have firearms regulatory power

And it is found in the same place where it was for the previous fifty times you made this unfounded claim. And it will continue to remain there in the Constitution and be the answer for the next fifty thousand claims you make also.

 

[matchlight]

This is like trying to play chess with someone who doesn't even know--or pretends not to--how the pieces move. He moves a bishop or a knight straight down a file as far as he pleases, counting on the people watching the match to be oblivious, and then shrieks in protest and pounds the table when his opponent points out that his move's no good.

So, a couple basic principles. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally limited only the actions of the United States, and not those of the states. John Marshall made that principle clear in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. The claim that Maryland had violated the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment must fail, the Court held, because that clause only applied to the United States.

Decades later, the Court would hold that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause incorporated the Taking Clause and applied it to the states. Under this incorporation doctrine, in a long series of decisions starting about 1900, the Court applied one part of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states. A couple years ago, in McDonald v. Chicago, it at last did this with the Second Amendment.

The importance the Framers attached to prohibiting an establishment of religion by the United States is shown by the fact they made the Establishment Clause the very first part of the First Amendment. And yet it was not until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that the Court first applied the Establishment Clause to the states. For more than 150 years after the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, any state was perfectly free to declare its own official religion if it chose to.

States are sovereigns, and as such they have the inherent power to make laws and policies for their people. This is often referred to as the "police (as in 'policy') power." The United States, in contrast, has only those limited and enumerated powers the states and their people saw fit to give it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has discussed this more than once, and if anyone wants to dispute the point, I will take the time to find a decision where it's done that and quote it here.

So the notion that the Framers could not prohibit the United States from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and yet reserve the power to infringe it to the states, is just plain silly. Of course they could--and did. But I've often seen people who favor an all-powerful central government (ironically, they often claim to be "liberals") try to blur the distinction between federal and state powers. That distinction is very inconvenient for their statist arguments.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is like trying to play chess with someone who doesn't even know--or pretends not to--how the pieces move. He moves a bishop or a knight straight down a file as far as he pleases, counting on the people watching the match to be oblivious, and then shrieks in protest and pounds the table when his opponent points out that his move's no good.

So, a couple basic principles. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally limited only the actions of the United States, and not those of the states. John Marshall made that principle clear in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. The claim that Maryland had violated the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment must fail, the Court held, because that clause only applied to the United States.

Decades later, the Court would hold that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause incorporated the Taking Clause and applied it to the states. Under this incorporation doctrine, in a long series of decisions starting about 1900, the Court applied one part of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states. A couple years ago, in McDonald v. Chicago, it at last did this with the Second Amendment.

The importance the Framers attached to prohibiting an establishment of religion by the United States is shown by the fact they made the Establishment Clause the very first part of the First Amendment. And yet it was not until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that the Court first applied the Establishment Clause to the states. For more than 150 years after the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, any state was perfectly free to declare its own official religion if it chose to.

States are sovereigns, and as such they have the inherent power to make laws and policies for their people. This is often referred to as the "police (as in 'policy') power." The United States, in contrast, has only those limited and enumerated powers the states and their people saw fit to give it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has discussed this more than once, and if anyone wants to dispute the point, I will take the time to find a decision where it's done that and quote it here.

So the notion that the Framers could not prohibit the United States from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and yet reserve the power to infringe it to the states, is just plain silly. Of course they could--and did. But I've often seen people who favor an all-powerful central government (ironically, they often claim to be "liberals") try to blur the distinction between federal and state powers. That distinction is very inconvenient for their statist arguments.

wonderful analysis. wonder what the response will be

 

[LaMidRighter]

wonderful analysis. wonder what the response will be

My only response is where the court took the establishment clause, I think it swung too far past the intention of the clause itself. Establishment prohibited but not endorsement, however that's my additional opinion to a spot on post by matchlight.

 

[matchlight]

My only response is where the court took the establishment clause, I think it swung too far past the intention of the clause itself. Establishment prohibited but not endorsement, however that's my additional opinion to a spot on post by matchlight.

Thanks to you both for the kind words. I agree about Justice Black's decision in Everson. As an ex-Klan official in Alabama, he didn't exactly have a warm spot in his heart for the Catholic Church. So although the Court did uphold a New Jersey law under which a school board reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their kids to parochial schools, the thrust of the decision cuts the other way. In Black's view, the Establishment Clause erected a pretty solid "wall of separation" between church and state. The Court's decisions since Everson have made it more of a fence with quite a few holes in it.

Ever notice how people who are commonly called "liberals" tend to loathe the First and Second Amendments? Attacks on the freedom of speech through political correctness and bans on "hate speech"; unrelenting persecution of religious believers, especially Christians, for daring to consider homosexual sodomy, abortion, and other cherished leftist "rights" immoral; attempts to silence talk radio by reviving the "fairness doctrine"; abuse of the IRS to attack Tea Party organizations, chilling the right to political association; and continual hostility toward firearms and the right to own and use them. We should call them what they really are--statists with an inflated view of their moral superiority and a tyrannical urge to dictate how we of the hoi polloi must live.

All this intolerance of dissent and independence is anything but liberal, and it has more in common with the totalitarian systems of 20th century Europe than with America's traditions. I agree with what Hayek said in The Road to Serfdom, the gist of which was that calling people who favor limited central government "conservatives" misleadingly smears them as being reactionaries who oppose even beneficial changes. He thought of them more as true liberals, in the sense the term was used in the 1800's. So do I. That's also what I would call most of the brilliant, radical thinkers who founded this country, and I'm proud to have a political philosophy that's pretty close to the one most of them subscribed to.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Thanks to you both for the kind words. I agree about Justice Black's decision in Everson. As an ex-Klan official in Alabama, he didn't exactly have a warm spot in his heart for the Catholic Church. So although the Court did uphold a New Jersey law under which a school board reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their kids to parochial schools, the thrust of the decision cuts the other way. In Black's view, the Establishment Clause erected a pretty solid "wall of separation" between church and state. The Court's decisions since Everson have made it more of a fence with quite a few holes in it.

Ever notice how people who are commonly called "liberals" tend to loathe the First and Second Amendments? Attacks on the freedom of speech through political correctness and bans on "hate speech"; unrelenting persecution of religious believers, especially Christians, for daring to consider homosexual sodomy, abortion, and other cherished leftist "rights" immoral; attempts to silence talk radio by reviving the "fairness doctrine"; abuse of the IRS to attack Tea Party organizations, chilling the right to political association; and continual hostility toward firearms and the right to own and use them. We should call them what they really are--statists with an inflated view of their moral superiority and a tyrannical urge to dictate how we of the hoi polloi must live.

All this intolerance of dissent and independence is anything but liberal, and it has more in common with the totalitarian systems of 20th century Europe than with America's traditions. I agree with what Hayek said in The Road to Serfdom, the gist of which was that calling people who favor limited central government "conservatives" misleadingly smears them as being reactionaries who oppose even beneficial changes. He thought of them more as true liberals, in the sense the term was used in the 1800's. So do I. That's also what I would call most of the brilliant, radical thinkers who founded this country, and I'm proud to have a political philosophy that's pretty close to the one most of them subscribed to.

The most telling is the repackaging of old ideas such as prohibition, centralized control, absolute government authority, the subjugation of the individual for "the collective", and other such notions as "progress". Well, it is regression, to a point where humans were treated as nothing more than serfs and many refuse to see it.

 

[haymarket]

So the notion that the Framers could not prohibit the United States from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, and yet reserve the power to infringe it to the states, is just plain silly.

You miss the point.

If this sacred natural right to arm oneself is so important that they (in the opinion of Turtle and others) built a huge wall in the Constitution to prohibit the FEDERAL government from interfering with it - why would some of the same people allow the State government to regulate and control firearms since it involves the SAME SACRED NATURAL RIGHT?

It like saying I will do everything I can to make sure that no water comes in on the north and west sides of the roof but you leave holes unpatched on the south and east.
It makes no sense IF the sacred natural right is held by these same people.

The obvious implication is that what some here view as this sacred natural right to arm is NOT what the Founders felt it was. Which is why I keep asking the same questions that go unanswered over and over and over again.

 

[matchlight]

You miss the point.

I guess I do. But then not all of us have your understanding of constitutional law.