"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:11:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What you challenged me about was my statement that it's "mostly a myth"
that, as the author of the piece you originally quoted said, "The fact is
the Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide American
citizens
with the tools necessary to rise up and overthrow an abusive government."
I
said it's "mostly a myth," because both the 2nd Amendment itself and the
various state constitutional provisions regarding gun ownership say
nothing
about it. They say it is for protecting the security of the state. The
business about rising up and overthrowing the government isn't mentioned
in
the constitutions. In fact, to the extent it's talked about, it's in
terms
of protecting against "insurrections."

As you will notice in the first sections of the brief...making sure
the people can revolt against a tyrannical government was discussed
many times, and plenty of examples were given to that effect.

Not a single one from actual law or from a single constitution, state or
federal. All of it was from political tracts -- editorials. The
constitutions they quoted contradicted your point flatly. They said it was
for security of the *states*, and for protection from rebellions and
usurpations.

Without starting another thread, that's one of the two fatal flaws of the
5th Circuit's "Emerson" decision, and of this DOJ brief. They mix-and-match
actual laws and the various political arguments that preceded them. Which
one is the Bush argument, and which one is the Kerry argument? One way to
decide is on the basis of which one made it into an actual US law or
constitutional provision. That's the way that holds the most authority under
our jurisprudence -- and it's the way any "originalist" will insist that
such decisions are made.


As to infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights, additional examples were
given where the courts ruled in many individual cases, such could NOT
be constitutional.

I don't know what this is in reference to. Are you making a new statement,
or responding to one of mine?


I further presented cites from Article 4 and 6 indicating that no
state could change or disregard ANY portion of the constitution.
Being found "good law" only shows how far the rot has spread.

Give it a break, Gunner. Are you trying to tell us that the Supreme Court
had the issue of state's rights all wrong for over 100 years, and that the
doctrines of incorporation under the 14th Amendment were unnecessary,
because the federal government already had the power to enforce all of the
Bill of Rights over the heads of the states anyway, because of Article 6?

Where did you get this great insight? Why do you suppose the USSC missed
this obvious point, while you, Gunner, has it all figured out? g

Read again the quotes I posted from the debates in Congress a few days ago,
on the 1st Amendment, and look at the citations in Barron v. Baltimore
(1833). That's one of the "pre-Civil-War" decisions that the DOJ apparently
things so highly of.

The bottom line is that the Bill of Rights was demanded by the states, as a
guarantee that their authority and the rights of their citizens would not be
usurped by the new federal government. Thus, there is nothing in the BofR
that's worded like the 13th and 14th Amendments, in which those rights were
first applied over the heads of the states -- explicitly.

--
Ed Huntress