Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon  Until the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was deemed to be a limitation on the powers of the federal government, not state governments, I believe. |
As to who could have guns, it is only recently that Democrats saw the criminal element as people, not to be deprived of their rights to vote for Democrats, but cannot have guns, which creates a hypocrisy.
There is no indication whatsoever that the States could deprive White people of life, liberty, or property, without due process, so the Bill of Rights not specifically addressed to the "Congress" were binding upon the States. For the Bill of Rights to be "deemed to be a limitation on the powers of the federal government, not state governments," would have allowed the States to hang Rhet Butler without trial. The XIV gave blacks, or "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," equal protection of the laws, it did not give any rights whatsoever to those who already had rights in what was the Whitey Bill of Rights.
I could understand disbanding our standing army, marines..., and bombing the enemy back to the stone age until their Dictator (who does not care about how many of his people we kill) surrenders. My support for ground troops, which puts more of our own at risk, is only due to my liberal weakness for mercy. Anyway, the only law that applies here is the part that was passed. The intent is to require a standing army a unique requirement, it has the term of a House of Representives, and unlike a Navy it cannot last without it being necessary for the defense. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a standing army, the phrase isn't even in there.
This part is funny, from Heller:
"For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
'Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.' See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Do you think they were afraid the Negroes would use the arms for insurrection?
"And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that '[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.'”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
That is consistant with my assertion that 2A does in fact come from ancient wisdom, like Aristotle (I am sure every self respecting founder had read), that to keep arms for self defense is not just for defense from the thief in the hood, but defense from the articulate usurping Prince.
Fifty Million Small arms in the hands of the whole of the people, if you do not kill them all, they will keep the bad Prince afraid of the shadows and his helos under heavy guard.