A nugget of historical perspective on the second and 14th amendments.

From Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction
that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment:

Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of
the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may
be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to
these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments
of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right
appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be
exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to
be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue
of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be
informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury
of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and
unusual punishments.


Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by
the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first
eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of
decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges,
rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as
a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/senatorhowardspeechonthefourteenthamendment.pdf

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, circa 1866. That spells is out pretty unequivocally:

"the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments
of the Constitution ; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right
appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms ;"


I'm sure hes just a gun worshipping nra shill. :eyes:

:o

I'm not going to ask you to explain because you will not do it in any way that is cohesive. Can you actually type more than one sentence at a time?

You're fairly new around these parts and you haven't gotten used to Shares unique...style. But take comfort! Every time Shares posts something on this subject some person somewhere reads it and, if they previously thought the Brady Campaign was an honest organization, decides it's time to call into question their beliefs on the issue, as they are incapable of being on the same side as someone that gives the word "irrational" a whole new meaning like Shares does, which eventually leads them to a site like www.guncite.com.

So even though we have to put up with his BS on a fairly regular basis, I think a greater purpose is ultimately served. ;)

Most of the words were mine however. I usually get one of the following responses.

In a NUTshell:
Sacrosanct Proliferation…
Samurai Swords…
Obsolete 2A…
Single Shot Flintlocks…
Nothing in society has advanced past 1789…
America’s over abiding love of guns…
Gun owners are the same as Kiddie Pornographers…
Stop the manufacture
All people have a potential for future harm…
There are 50 gun-worshiping states…
He can personally increase the value of my guns…
It’s OK for the police to violate the constitution…
It's moot because the 10th and 14th Amendments are obsolete…
Turning off the spigot will suddenly make the lions will lay with the lambs
Guns settle grievances…
People, even criminals killed by guns are "Manifestly Good People"
People saved by guns don’t count
Guns = Embolden criminals
2A, 10A, 14A do not deserve to be protected in the constitution… But my car does…
Non firearms victims (I.E. crimes where someone is beaten to death), again those dead don’t count
Some sort of Sadistic Point Systems… I.E. Guns as a solution to guns, "no point awarded"
The Federal Government can solve ALL of the problems facing the nation…
Society knowingly arms criminals with guns so that they may kill…

My personal favorite…
Rape is the woman’s fault…

Not bad for someone with only 150 posts. I have asked him several direct questions in responses to comments that he has made and ALL have gone answered. I don't think he has the capacity to formulate more than one sentence at a time, and therefore refuses to answer the questions. As they require complete and thoughtful consideration and answers.

I look at his posts like fart jokes. Funny, yet inappropriate.

Every time he opens his mouth, another Glock flies out the door.

It is a wonderful life.

:rofl:

Remember: "Every time Sarah Brady cries, an angel gets its wings!"

Why do you think the IRA never assasinated Paisley? He did more good for them alive and running his mouth than he would have as a martyr.

Best recruiter the (Irish) Republicans ever had...

I'll say that for me.

Your post history paints a MUCH different picture, shares.

:rofl:

My point was that your words do not work together as a whole... Hence the word cohesive. It's like the words you choose to string together are actually fighting each other.

But, since you bring it up, your thoughts also seem to lack in coherency as well.

My words are the model of internal consistency.

Are you trying to somehow dazzle the forum with Confucius like one-liners that you think will somehow emote that you are instilling in us some sort of deep wisdom?

Or is it that you are just limited to one sentence at a time?

Matter of fact, you are not even aiming in the right direction.

Freudian slip.

:rofl:

I missed that. Brilliant!

getting desperate. I'll say that for you.

:rofl:

"He just didn't yet realize that the Civil War had rendered the 2nd Amendment moot."

Thats quite an implication, shares. The implication being that at some point afterward, he DID realise that "the Civil War had rendered the 2nd Amendment moot".

I'd like to see you cite that.

That or just admit you made it up.

Goodness knows, there are many people even today who haven't gotten it yet.

...who haven't "gotten" that we never landed on the Moon, in that many people don't "get" that because it's a bullshit statement (yes, shares, we did in fact land on the Moon).

When did this happen? The moon? Really? Like in outer space? Wow!

We should celebrate or something.

The 2nd Amendment was included to give those states which were skeptical about a centralized federal government the reassurance that they could withdraw from the Union and do battle with that government if they thought they had to.

As a nation, we went through all that from 1861 to 1865, and came out the other end.

Never again.

Bye bye 2nd.

I don't think you can draw a slope from a single datum.

Your math, it is also teh fail.

And then 145 years of caselaw seems to indicate otherwse!

Bye bye gun bans.

:rofl:

"The 2nd Amendment was included to give those states which were skeptical about a centralized federal government the reassurance that they could withdraw from the Union and do battle with that government if they thought they had to."

As Senator Jacob Howard - a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment - said, the second amendment is a PERSONAL right. I reckon they - the drafters of the 14th, ought to know juuust a bit more than you do, what the second amendment means.

I mean, you can state your opinion all day long, that it "was included to give those states which were skeptical about a centralized federal government the reassurance that they could withdraw from the Union and do battle with that government if they thought they had to", but in the end, you fail yet again.


The bill of rights, is a laundry list of restrictions on GOVERNMENTAL POWER. The constitution authorizes what government MAY do, and the bill of rights spells out what government is FORBIDDEN from doing. Thats how the bill of rights as a mechanism works. Thats what it does.



But don't take my word for it, heres the text of the actual document itself that spells it out:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

"Its powers" refers to the FEDERAL government.

The second amendment has a declaratory clause "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" and a restrictive clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

A reading of the second amendment as anything other than a simple restriction on governmental power, is an incorrect reading, according to the the preamble to the bill of rights itself.

The second amendment was included, expressly and specifically to forbid the government from infringing on the personal rights of people to bear arms. Whether there was or was not purpose beyond that, is not relevant.

The document in question itself, was intended to work exactly in that way.


"Bye bye 2nd."

Work to amend it if you must (pack a lunch), but know this:

You are outnumbered 1000 to 1. And we people that are your opponents...you are attacking not just our beliefs, and not just our possessions, but also our own way of life. We have tenfold more to fight for, than you or your contemporaries do. We who are your opponents have a great deal more to lose, than you have to gain. I doubt very much that you have given that any serious thought.

And you can be damn sure that will be reflected in every single battle fought over this issue.

We were NEVER the ones starting this fight, but we WILL finish it.

In the end shares, you'll lose.

That's your choice.

You wouldn't be ascribing meaning to someone elses words, which they were never intended to convey, would you? Where IS our resident canadian to chastise you for it, as is done albeit consistantly, when such things happen hereabouts...


It shouldn't have to be said, though aparently it has to be when addressing you, that the context of the discussion, is political.


Deducing the real and true meaning of the words of others - rather than ascribing whatever meaning suits your fancy - should be your goal.

Some wise words to leave you with:

The ignorant honest person, when presented with the truth, either ceases to be ignorant... or ceases to be honest.

From your cold, dead hand.

Your meaning seemed clear enough.

The meaning IS crystal clear:


WE - those that are for the right to keep andbear arms - are never the ones to start the conflict over the right to own guns.

That "honor" belongs to you and your contemporaries. Attacking what you disagree with - that being The right of the people to keep and bear arms - essentially picking a fight with a group of people that by and large just want to be left alone. You got the NFA, and the GCA, and the brady bill...but you want more, and more, and yet more. Surely you see that you're picking a fight in the political arena by doing so, and energizing us every time you attempt it...

As I said, we didn't start it, but we will finish it - as in defeating you and your contemporaries proposed infringements, and your lobbying of government to do your bidding, and in doing so doing that which it is explicitly forbidden from doing by the bill of rights.

Is it possible you're just predisposed to ascribing meanings to the words of others such as you have, because you have no other recourse?

I think your problem, is that you're confusing the concept of defeating government or some such, with the defeating the designs of you and your contemporaries - which obviously is what I was referring to.

Well, that and the matter of whether it is deliberate on your part or not.

Painting your opponents as extremists, as you have attempted to do here, has not worked since the 90's. In fact, it has backfired and cost YOUR side. It has in fact taken an enormous toll on your entire movement.

What makes you think its any different here and now?

Unfortunately, that's what it will take here in the USA because we love guns so much.

It didn't have to get that far in Britain and Australia. They saw what guns could do and where proliferation could lead, and they acted boldly.

Most of all, they looked at America and said No Thanks Yanks.

They did the wise and socially responsible thing.

It is your side that is going down.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


Though, I will admit, the wording is more evolved, and preferable to the wording in the 2nd, since it also prohibits things like say, blackwater today, or the Pinkertons back then, forming a corporate army.

He does respond to questions, if the timing is right. Though less so if the thread has moved on. Perhaps a function of the MyDU link only showing your last 20 posts.

I have yet to see a SINGLE post from sharesunited that is grounded in reality or factually based.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=252647&mesg_id=252657

That makes you a liar. Now say your sorry...

:sarcasm:

:)

And came close to logic. :pals:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

a major 2A case is before SCOTUS now. That is a lot of activity for a "Bye bye" amendment.

definitive proof of the existence of the gun control reality distortion field?