[belercous]

I'm much better now, but that is debatable. My spelling may suffer, and my liver certainly will, but "Hey, I'm Baaack." It is difficult being a liberal in a conservative echo-chamber, but seeing as there are some here who appear to be reasonable people, I'm up for my fair share of abuse, at least for now. I know that I'm not gonna sway opinions, but this whole forum seems to be totally one-sided, and I thought I'd bring a little balance. Very little if one goes by the opinion polls current today.

Marlin T: Yes, I said that. A court that overturns precedent is considered activist. That's what conservatives mean by it, so I'm just using their definition. Actually, it's a valid definition/description.
The Court was activist when it ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Remember that one? It held that (de jure, not de facto) segregated schools were unconstitutional. The law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson [sp?]) in 1954 was that "seperate but equal" was constitutional, the settled law of the land. Divining the framers intent of the 14th Amen. was a no-brainer. In the congressional debates concerning the 14th Amen., the specific question was asked "Does this mean that white children will have to sit next to colored children in school?" The answer was a resounding "No." So, going into 1954 we had clear congressional intent and clear prior S.C. precedent saying that "seperate but equal" was what the Const. meant. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, overturned this decision. Clearly an activist court. I mention this to demonstrate why an "activist" court is not always a bad thing. Or is there someone out there who can argue against this blatantly activist decision? Racists, speak up. Now is your time to shine.

And yes, I'm not a single-issue voter, I have many more interests than guns. If my interests in life were confined soley to firearms, I couldn't consider that much of a life. Not for me anyway, if others primary concern in life is guns, well I wish them the best and hope they are happy. I love guns, but they are not my sole all-consuming issue in life, I have other things to do. Guns are a part of my life, but by no means everything my life revolves around. It just so happens that the Democratic party represents my interests way more than the Republican party, at least now a days. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of the Dems., but the Reps. represent my views even less.

If you think the Republican party defends the Const., Then we obviously have differing views on what the Const. means. The Rep. party just hates giving crimminal defendants rights. Never mind that they are only "accused," they are not deserving of rights because they are guilty. (Why else would they have been arrested? Circular reasoning) If you think the Republican party represents the rights granted in the Const, (outside of the 2nd and 10th) you really haven't been up on politics in the last 40+ years.

John Brainard:No, the gov. might do something uncostitutional, but legal. The courts will keep them from enforcing an uncostitutional act. The gov. won't do something (usually) because it's illegal. If something is in violation of the law, it is illegal. If something (and it often has been a law) is in violation of the Cons., it cannot be enforced by the courts. An unconstitutional law is invalid, same as an illegal law. Neither can be enforced by the courts. Sometimes courts will enforce an illegal law, or unconstitutional law, but that is why we have appellate courts, and the S.C. Yes, it can be confusing, but I think we are on the same page.

Muddobber: Nobody with any idea about political systems would ever say that we are a democracy. Never have been, never will be. Only the uneducated or fools could believe this. We are a republic, this is common knowledge. Yeah, I know all about how Senators used to be appointed, no surprise to me, you are correct so far. Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

Look, what I think of the 2nd Amen. counts for squat. If we were to use the Founding Fasthers intent,. and follow it thru to its natural outcome, in re: 2nd Amen., and let's just say for the sake of argument that it only applied to the states (the status quo today), well Oklahoma would be entitled to have an atom bomb. And ICBM's too. Do you see how this could be a problem?

Now, let's consider if this right were granted to the individual. Well, Bill gates could own the bomb, perhaps Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg as well. Or anybody else wealthy enough to afford it. It would be one's right under the 2nd Amen., if the 2nd Amen. granted an individual the right to keep & bear arms, and this right was understanding of the Const. as being static. Does anyone see a problem with this? I mean a constitutional problem, not an actual problem?

When the 2nd Amen. was adopted, militias had the same arms that regular armies did. Now, if we want to adopt the view (as some on this forum do) that the Const. is a static document (meaning that we cannot go beyond what the Framers intended at its adoption, not a living document as is the prevelant view today), no, Oklahoma could not have the bomb or ICBMs. They weren't around back in 1787(89), so the Const. could not possibly speak about them. As such, they could be regulated or denied.

Alright, now let' assume that the Const. means the same thing now as it did in 1789. Cartridge rifles were not extant then, so under a "static" Const., no right to own one. My piont here is, if we were to adopt a constructional interpretation of the Const. as rigid, or "static," we would, even granted the personal right (incorporated to the states) only be allowed to own flint-lock guns.

Such are the logical ramifications of the arguments in re; 2nd Amen.

Now, I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate mail posts because of this, but it is reality. Please try to find fault with my arguments, but I'll only respond, non-dismissively or non-sarcasticlly, to those who can posit a reasoned argument. It might take a couple of days for my diesel-powered computator to gets back up online, but I'll check here soon. And If I don't reply to you, consider that I don't consider you in my league, much less worth my time.
I welcome well-reasoned debate (how else can I learn?), and have been known to concede a point when I'm wrong. However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly. And, once again, this thread is about the 2nd Amen., not tangential (unless germane) issues.

Me out now, good-beddy bye.