Lou Posted May 23, 2011 at 11:35 PM Share Posted May 23, 2011 at 11:35 PM Is all of that quoting and requoting really neccessary? Sorry for the interruption, but I neded to say something. It's crazy trying to follow threads like this when checking in on the mobile. Ok, back to the thread... Thanks. That was really what I was trying to get across. Sorry for the sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houndawg Posted May 24, 2011 at 01:10 PM Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 01:10 PM I could be wrong, but I don't recall Illinois declaring war on Germany in either WW1 or WW2. I guess you haven't read the Constitution. Declaration of war is an exclusive power of the US Congress. Any power not given to the US government is given to the states. The US government is prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The states aren't. At least they weren't, until this bullcrap thing called incorporation came into being. Most states did the right thing by putting RKBA in their own constitutions. As for the causes of the Civil War, I guess the winners write the history and the real history is thrown by the wayside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitae Drinker Posted May 24, 2011 at 05:22 PM Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 05:22 PM I could be wrong, but I don't recall Illinois declaring war on Germany in either WW1 or WW2. I guess you haven't read the Constitution. Declaration of war is an exclusive power of the US Congress. Any power not given to the US government is given to the states. The US government is prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The states aren't. At least they weren't, until this bullcrap thing called incorporation came into being. Most states did the right thing by putting RKBA in their own constitutions. As for the causes of the Civil War, I guess the winners write the history and the real history is thrown by the wayside. I guess you haven't read the constitution either, then: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Last I checked, the right to keep and bear arms was a 'privelage' (aka right) I had. But now, since you're rather rude, I shall let you have the final word as I really have no interest in continuing discourse with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belercous Posted June 5, 2011 at 06:36 AM Share Posted June 5, 2011 at 06:36 AM It appears BlackHalo has a pretty good grasp of the Constitution & its history. HoundDawg seems to understand the original Const. only applied to the states, if not much more.(Hint; slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War, research that one) Federal Farmer also seems to understand the Const., except that McDonald did not incorporate the entire 2A, the "bear arms" clause has yet to apply to the states, but might soon. It's gonna be up to Justice Kennedy. Who said an activist Court is always a bad thing? It works both ways, as it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 5, 2011 at 02:31 PM Share Posted June 5, 2011 at 02:31 PM .. McDonald did not incorporate the entire 2A, the "bear arms" clause has yet to apply to the states... Even Feldman, arguing for Chicago in McDonald, understood how wrong that idea is. During oral arguments this exchange took place in regard to incorporating only part of the Second Amendment: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm trying to get you to take a position on whether or not you want us to not only pick and choose among which amendments are part of our abstract notion of ordered liberty, or if you want us also to take amendments that might be in and refine them and shave them off a little bit and say well, this part of the amendment is in, and this part isn't. MR. FELDMAN: No, that's not the argument that we are making. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So your argument is all in or all out. MR. FELDMAN: The argument we're making -yes. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. If Chicago doesn't believe in "partial incorporation" it seems silly to expect us to accept that notion.McDonald v Chicago Oral Arguments.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houndawg Posted June 7, 2011 at 02:36 PM Share Posted June 7, 2011 at 02:36 PM slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War, research that one) Been there, done that. You're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted June 7, 2011 at 02:56 PM Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 at 02:56 PM Even Feldman, arguing for Chicago in McDonald, understood how wrong that idea is. During oral arguments this exchange took place in regard to incorporating only part of the Second Amendment: .... If Chicago doesn't believe in "partial incorporation" it seems silly to expect us to accept that notion. I hadn't read the oral arguments. Nice find, thank you for sharing. That's a real gem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 7, 2011 at 03:33 PM Share Posted June 7, 2011 at 03:33 PM slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War, research that one) Been there, done that. You're wrong. Have you read the various secession speeches by the seceding Governors? Seems like you haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.