Slashdot Mirror

epic fail............
logic fail...........

...History fail.

when the Framers of the Constitution referred to the militia in the text of the document and the ratification debates, they had very definite ideas of what they meant. Their concept of the militia as a legal and political institution was a product of English heritage, as it was modified by the uniqueness of the American experience. It differed radically from our own concept. Specifically, what we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era.

Guns are, however, what makes belligerent people dangerous. Hence the focus on extensive background checks.

No. Belligerent people are ALREADY dangerous. If they're going to be dangerous, they'll do it whether or not they have a gun, box cutter, knife, baseball bat, etc.

But the various mental defectives out there latch on to GUNS being the culprit and not belligerent assholes.

Yep, the numbers of belligerents going around with box cutters, knifes, baseball bats, and etceteras committing homicides proves that they would kill no matter what... Or wait, no it doesn't. Guess you better ask a mental defective to explain the difference to you.

It also doesn't disprove it either. According to Snopes the number of homicides committed by knives, etc. is considerably less than handguns. However the number of other objects used to commit murder is still a significant number. It also doesn't prove that the number of other weapons used would not increase if firearms were not available.

What I find particularly interesting is that the total number of homicides is considerably lower in all listed weapons except for "other". Even so, the total number of homicides for 2010 is slightly less (13,374) than the 1993 high for handguns alone (13,981). According to these numbers the total number of homicides in 1993 was 24,530. That's a decrease of 11,156. I wouldn't have thought the number had gone down and by such a significant amount. But the 24 hour news channels seem to keep us thinking that we're heading toward armageddon.

What would be interesting would be to see a publication similar to this one for more recent times. I wonder if the percentages are still the same.

The 2nd amendment is because we didn't have a standing military at the time, nor did most parts of the US have any law enforcement of note. Having those firearms at that time served a legitimate need.

Nice to see that you're pretty much completely ignorant of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.

Actually, there are a -lot- of reasons that have been stated / opined as having been behind the 2nd amendment by scholars that seem to have put a bit more effort into their thoughts than you have:

• * To preserve slavery: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery, and http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-the-real-reason-for-the-second-amendment-protection-of/article_0cb7886a-653c-11e2-9962-001a4bcf887a.html
• * Rawle believed its purpose was to check government's "inordinate pursuit of power": http://books.google.com/books?id=akEbAAAAYAAJ
• * Blackstone covered some ground with a self defense argument: http://davidkopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm
• * Spooner believed its purpose was to counter "government tyranny": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-141
• * Carl Bogus, in the UC Davis Law Review, makes a strong case for the intent being to assure States that Congress couldn't disarm their militias: http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

The bottom line is that there exist a multitude of opinions, from scholars that actually back what they say up with decent arguments (you didn't quite make it into that group this time, hedwards), and cold fjord's post falls right into the middle of the range. I would say that making a single-line blanket statement of opinion as fact, then telling cold fjord that -he- is ignorant is laughable.

BTW- cold ford, I'm moderating tonight so posting as AC, but I -did- read your prior posts, and I guess you're not a shill. :-)

This wasn't spying between two different sides of one company. This was someone in the Bloomberg corporation who was able to spy on people in Goldman Sachs corporation - two different companies. It isn't clear that you could firewall this as it seems to be covert functionality built into the software.

Keep in mind that this is the company started by the current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. That is the same Mayor Bloomberg that tried to limit the size of sodas in New York City to 16 oz., and started the scandal ridden "Mayors against Guns."

Although John Stewart said this about the soda ban, I'm thinking it might have wider application.

"combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect." -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I think a citation is needed to corroborate the claim vis-à-vis regulated = trained.

In the mean time, the (current) No 1 definition of a "militia" is:

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.

And I'd wager that most gun owners aren't enrolled for military service either; and no, registering for the Selective Service (the draft) doesn't count.

That's the ORGANIZED (not "Regulated") Militia. The other citizens (originally as defined as the caucasian males between 18 and 45) is referred to as the UNORGANIZED Militia. There was even a relatively recent (1990) SCOTUS case regarding this, when the Governor of Minnesota at the time, Rudy Perpich, bitched about his State's National Guard members being summarily called up for active Military Duty by the Federal Government during the Falklands' War without his permission, and without a national emergency, etc. Read the case; it has a long explanation of the history of the term "Militia", and the definition of the "Organized" versus "Unorganized" Militiae.

yes. In fact, most studies into the phenomenon of defensive gun usage conclude that there are millions of defensive gun uses per year. The lowest result is over 8 tens of thousands. That result, however, varies from other results by a wide margin (if, by wide, we're talking grand canyon). Interestingly, "wounded or killed offender" makes up 8.3% of all defensive gun uses.

I'm also a legal immigrant in US, and you're wrong.

Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms

NRA and SAF have sued the State of Washington for refusing to issue firearm licenses to aliens in 2008. The state has backed down, which is why I have an AFL and am able to own firearms. Other states still have similar restrictions on the books, and they're also being sued over it (e.g. Missouri, New Mexico). It's one of those cases where the right is there, but we need to fight to get it fully respected, and people are working on it.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure - DHS and other police forces are allowed to seize and search me at any time

Not really. They can demand your immigration papers, and if you cannot provide sufficient evidence of your status, they can hold you until they ascertain that, but they can't just randomly search you or your house.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel - DHS trials are closed to the public, no jury, can last well beyond the time your alien status expires (at which point you have to leave and the case is closed) and decisions made by a DHS judge on my status as an alien resident cannot be challenged by state or federal judges.

The 6th begins with "In all criminal prosecutions ...". DHS trials are not criminal prosecutions.

Besides that I do not have the right to vote or seek political office on a federal level.

That is one of those few bits in the Constitution where it explicitly reserves the right to citizens (and not to the "people"). This is as it should be - the whole point of citizenship is that it gets you the ability to take part in running the country.

I'm also a legal immigrant in US, and you're wrong.

Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms

NRA and SAF have sued the State of Washington for refusing to issue firearm licenses to aliens in 2008. The state has backed down, which is why I have an AFL and am able to own firearms. Other states still have similar restrictions on the books, and they're also being sued over it (e.g. Missouri, New Mexico). It's one of those cases where the right is there, but we need to fight to get it fully respected, and people are working on it.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure - DHS and other police forces are allowed to seize and search me at any time

Not really. They can demand your immigration papers, and if you cannot provide sufficient evidence of your status, they can hold you until they ascertain that, but they can't just randomly search you or your house.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel - DHS trials are closed to the public, no jury, can last well beyond the time your alien status expires (at which point you have to leave and the case is closed) and decisions made by a DHS judge on my status as an alien resident cannot be challenged by state or federal judges.

The 6th begins with "In all criminal prosecutions ...". DHS trials are not criminal prosecutions.

Besides that I do not have the right to vote or seek political office on a federal level.

That is one of those few bits in the Constitution where it explicitly reserves the right to citizens (and not to the "people"). This is as it should be - the whole point of citizenship is that it gets you the ability to take part in running the country.

I'm also a legal immigrant in US, and you're wrong.

Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms

NRA and SAF have sued the State of Washington for refusing to issue firearm licenses to aliens in 2008. The state has backed down, which is why I have an AFL and am able to own firearms. Other states still have similar restrictions on the books, and they're also being sued over it (e.g. Missouri, New Mexico). It's one of those cases where the right is there, but we need to fight to get it fully respected, and people are working on it.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure - DHS and other police forces are allowed to seize and search me at any time

Not really. They can demand your immigration papers, and if you cannot provide sufficient evidence of your status, they can hold you until they ascertain that, but they can't just randomly search you or your house.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel - DHS trials are closed to the public, no jury, can last well beyond the time your alien status expires (at which point you have to leave and the case is closed) and decisions made by a DHS judge on my status as an alien resident cannot be challenged by state or federal judges.

The 6th begins with "In all criminal prosecutions ...". DHS trials are not criminal prosecutions.

Besides that I do not have the right to vote or seek political office on a federal level.

That is one of those few bits in the Constitution where it explicitly reserves the right to citizens (and not to the "people"). This is as it should be - the whole point of citizenship is that it gets you the ability to take part in running the country.

There definitely is an organisation dedicated to gun rights. The Second Amendment Foundation http://www.saf.org/

I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?

Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.

Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:

* Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds

Bad data is bad data. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm

* 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person

Obviously biased source with more bad data. They're citing data that's specific to residents of the state of Missouri. Not national data. Either they can't get good information or they're lying because the truth hurts.

* When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.

This time, old data is OOOOOOLD. this data is nearly 30 years old. I can't find good relevant data either, i'm guessing neither can they.

* 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed

The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here. Also typically psychopaths aren't that logical. if they were, they wouldn't be committing crimes they'd be getting easily caught for.

* 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.

this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason. It's many other factors. Not only that but the statistic is OLD. Can't these gunfacts guys find facts that are relevant to this decade?

Following common usage, the framers of the Second Amendment used the phrase "bear arms" to refer to possession of weapons for military use... The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In... the conscientious objector provision, Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer solely to the possession of weapons for military use...

Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military activities is echoed in other contemporary usages... Records of debates in the Continental and U.S. Congresses between 1774 and 1821 [include] 30 uses of the phrase "bear arms" or "bearing arms" (other than in discussing the proposed Second Amendment); in every single one of these uses, the phrase has an unambiguously military meaning...

Dumbass, we have more guns per capita than you rednecks (supposedly 3x more). A significant percentage of canadians have handled a firearm before they get their drivers license (I recall its about about 40%, but I cant find a source to back it up).

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Cukier1.htm
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/talk-politics-guns/canadi an-faq/

Ignorance of the law is a legal excuse in some circumstances.

"It is wrong to convict a person of a crime if he had no reason to believe that the act for which he was convicted was a crime, or even that it was wrongful. This is one of the bedrock principles of American law. It lies at the heart of any civilized system of law." United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d 280, 293 (7th Cir. 1998) (Posner, C.J., dissenting).

"Chief Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit aptly explains the dilemma between the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and the inherent unreasonableness of criminal prosecutions involving obscure violations of law:

We want people to familiarize themselves with the laws bearing on their activities. But a reasonable opportunity doesn't mean being able to go to a local law library and read Title 18. It would be preposterous to suppose that someone from [the defendant's] milieu is able to take advantage of such an opportunity..."

Go to the folowing page and search for "ignorance" for some more info http://www.saf.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html

Also, guns have nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about sexual predators, adult men sexually molesting children for example. Usually a gun is not involved in these crimes.

What you propose is silly and would never be acceptable. Would all cops be required to fire RFID traceable bullets? Good luck with that one. Would all of our military be required to fire RFID traceable bullets? Good luck with that one. Sorry, but if our police and military are not required to be traced than We the People should certainly not be required to be traced.

Go find the discussions of the Founding Fathers on this topic. That's exactly what they had in mind if all else failed.

They'd had a certain amount of experience with "all else failed" and wanted to make it possible for the citizens to get rid of future oppressive goverments.

Check this out.

True, but Kleck's research suggests that a very large minority do involve the weapon being fired. Kleck's survey suggested that the weapon was fired in 24% of DGUs source.

Some more problems with Kleck's methodology: link

> I don't think you can make this assumption - defensive uses will tend to have a lower fatality
> rate simply because the shooter is likely to be suffering from a substantial loss of fine motor
> control due to the fight-or-flight response.

Loss of fine motor control will cause fewer hits, but in no way makes those bullets hit with any less energy or wounding power. Besides, firearm wound lethality statistics already take this into account by considering large numbers of criminal shootings, which aren't likely to be any better trained than civilian shootings.

Instead of showing ID to stop terrorists, how about pilots have guns and just shoot anyone who jumps up on a plane waiving a bomb/knife/gun/whatever shouting "Allah Akbar!"

Perhaps we could make ID an option, if you want to carry a gun on a plane, you need to show ID and sign a waiver. Then not only can the pilot shoot the terrorists so can citizens and filght attendents.

You might think I'm kidding . . .

Well if the music industry wants to educate children about the blessings of copyright - despite their support of "sampling" rap and RnB artists - I am sure they won't mind education into their industry's contracts that make artists subject to indentured servitude, which is considered illegal if, say, you had a border farm employing Mexicans smuggled in lorries. But apparently not in the great lobbying industry, sorry, I meant music industry.

Oh, not to mention they own your name while under contract. Gee, what a nice bunch they are. They truly deserve to decide what children learn.

Coming up in history education, a pamphlet from the NRA with the "real" version of the second amendment, which removes that confusing "A well-regulated militia" bit, which goes against the obvious need of individuals to own guns without the responsibility of being part of any defence force.

Oh, and didn't you have some problems with civil rights in the southern states in the 60's ?


Yes, we did, and that really is an illustration of jgardn's post. Notice how many laws have been passed since then to enforce civil rights and equality. Those came about because people took action, not because the government happily saw the error of its ways. But because the US is a democracy, and because people have freedom of political speech here, changes came about and those "problems" with civil rights in the south eventually were dealt with. No, we still don't have perfect racial harmony or equality. But at least from a legal perspective, we do. Now it's up to citizens to do the rest, not the government.

Incidentally, his point about the Second Amendment is well taken in this context as well: a lot of blacks in the South benefited from being able to bear arms, to defend themselves against groups like the Ku Klux Klan which opposed their fight for equality.

What the Second Amendment says by Chuck Klein

They are not actually fighting for the rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; they are redefining them as they see fit.

our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?
Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

School voucher schemes would force all taxpayers to support religious beliefs and practices with which they may strongly disagree.

Oooh. Better take a close look where you get those quotations. It turns out that some of the real Washington historians, and others, are understandably disenchanted with some of the revions the NRA fans have made to history themselves. It's tricky knowing who to trust. When everyone lies, how can one know the truth. Quite the moral meditation.

But. I hate to do this, I really do. And I wholely encourage you to do research into this yourself. At a library, since the internet is almost 100% bullshit and your detector needs a tune up.

Some sites, to provide you with direction when you head to the library, or sit down to write the good folks keeping history alive preserving the context from which our founding fathers legacy blossomed.

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQu otes.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

As a parting thought I offer: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

The fact is there is a great argument to be made for gun advocacy, and the problem is the idiots shouting blatant lies (perhaps because they don't know better?) keep the less numerous and quietly sane arguments from being heard.

Have a nice day.

This sounds far too unconstitutional to be true

Welcome to Amerika Comrade!

It is true. The appeals court ruled in the Emerson case that the 2nd is a individual, civilian right, (as if there were any doubt by anyone reasonable), but that the state may suspend it in the face of compelling state interest.

The supreme court refused to hear the case, so this appellate opinion is the current precedent.

It's not a California law, it's a federal law. Someone needs to attack it on the grounds that it does not involve interstate commerce, or anything else the federal government is allowed to pass laws about. So far I believe it's only been attacked on 2nd amendment grounds.

I bet you're thinking "well what if you are a law enforcement officer or armed security guard and you are getting a divorce or whatnot?". Well the answer is, basically, "tough shit". A case has gone through involving a security guard, where he won, but it was not appealed and no real precedent is set. Any person required to carry a gun that is going through a divorce is potentially putting their career in jeopardy, since restraining orders are generally granted automatically in divorce cases.

krispykringle -- Apologies, but this really is getting more involved than I have time to pursue right now, so I hope you don't mind if I call this my last contribution to this thread :)

In more direct regard to guns, though, we clearly acknowledge limits. You would be in the great minority (not that that discredits your beliefs, to be sure) if you truly believed that "anything [one] can bear is fair.""

Well, that's why I used the past tense ... the nuke-in-a-briefcase does give me the willies. Depending on who you believe or refuse to, there may be one or more of these in cities around the U.S.; reasonable sources suggest that the Soviet Embassy had one. (Or maybe this is now to the level of proven or disproven fact, I am not sure.)

"Does this apply to everyone? Are licensing schemes to make sure owners have proper training illegal?"

That's a good question. The Constitution specifies the right to "keep and bear" arms, does not address matters of acquisition directly. Certain types of legislation could obviously subvert the intent of such a statement of rights (banning ammunition, or outlawing guns with a capactity for >0 rounds of ammunition, mandating a 131-year waiting period etc), but I am not certain whether a mandatory training or competency test would do the same. I've considered this only a little bit in my life, but I don't see it as clearly unconstutional (or immoral, fattening etc) to require a basic competency test. (General welfare might cover this, though I think the general welfare is basically best served by leaving people the hell alone.) Driving licenses don't bother me so much, since they apply to public spaces; I think a decent analog in the gun world are the courses required, I believe in every state which allows concealed handgun carry, before people can carry. I think it's important that any such requirements be reasonable and liberal -- the law should defer to the gun owner and the public, rather than force the owner to defer to the state.

"What about preventing minors or mental patients or felons from owning guns? I know this will probably make you shake your head and mutter, "it's a slippery slope," but clearly once you acknowledge that some restrictions are OK, the debate becomes a bit more complex."

Well, I do acknowledge that some restrictions are OK, but I think this slippery slope is far less slippery than the point you raised earlier re: scope of arms ownership rights (the MiG). Felons who have served their full term ought IMO have the full rights of citizenship restored. It's not good to have a stratified society where people have different levels of rights. (For that matter, I'd like to see a lot of age restrictions done away with, on both ends of the age spectrum. Mandatory retirement ages disgust me.) Parolees by definition do not have all the rights of ordinary citizens, but I don't want a permanent parolee class.

"There are, of course, those who argue that in a historical context, the 2nd Amendment didn't mean what it has been said to mean, namely that the "well funded militia" means the intention was for a regulated militia, not rampant gun ownership in any home."

The Constituion specifies "well regulated" rather than "well funded;" that well regulated though is in a subordinate clause, subordinate to the "right of the people shall not be infringed" part. And, in a historical context, the founding dads expressing an opinion (looking for counterexamples) were pretty pro-gun.

See for instance this page, with gems like "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29)

(Though see also this page of bogus founders' quotes, which casts some doubt on the top quote from G. Washington listed in

The Bill of Rights was drafted to list the rights of individuals that the majority can't take away from them. If even Federal Judges can't see this, we're in big trouble.

The system works reasonably well, aside from the various political abuses.

Specifically, people have been wrongfully denied for political reasons, the records that the law requires to be destroyed are being held indefinitely, and NICS mysteriously goes down on the biggest gun show weekends of the year.

Even though the law was passed with what were thought was adequate safegaurds, it has taken years and extensive effort to change the recordkeeping activities of the FBI:

Final Rules Aim to Protect Information From Brady Background Checks

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently issued a final rule to ensure the privacy of information collected under background checks for purchasing firearms, as required by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The Brady law created a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to conduct presale checks on potential handgun purchasers to determine if the buyer is legally able to purchase the gun. The act aims to prevent gun violence resulting from unlawful firearm transfers.

A provision of the Brady law gives the FBI the authority to audit the use and operation of NICS and to destroy NICS records to prevent the establishment of a national firearms registry. In a proposed rule published in March 1999, the FBI proposed to retain information in the NICS audit log on background checks for 90 days, down from an earlier proposed 18 months and the current six months. More than 150 comments were received in response to the proposed rule, including many objections to any retention period at all as constituting a firearms registry in violation of the Brady law.

Reiterating their previous arguments, FBI officials, however, said they are not creating a firearms registry but must establish an adequate system of oversight and review, which requires that information be available for review for at least a short period of time.

Justice Technology Monitor, March 2001

Here's some websites I found which discuss the issue:

• Fourteenth Amendment at Findlaw, with annotations. Especially see the "priviliges and immunities" section of the annotations, where the right to assemble and the right to petition the government are listed among those which states may not restrict. (Granted, those aren't the rights at issue here, but they are First Amendment rights.)

• The Fourteenth Amendment: First Amendment II? Excellent summary of a few relevant cases, how the courts' view of the Fourteenth Amendment has changed over time, particularly with a view towards the political philosophy behind it.

• The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. An article from the Yale Law Review. Extensive summary of relevant cases and discussion. Very long.

Still, it seems that the courts are currently applying First Amendment rights as if the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibited state and local governments from encroaching upon those rights. State and local ordinances are often struck down on the grounds that they violate citizens' First Amendment rights. One of the seminal cases seems to be Gitlow v. New York, in which Justice Sanford, delivering the opinion of the court, writes "[W]e may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press... are among the personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." Granted, as the analyses above mention, prior to Gitlow the courts did not necessarily see the Fourteenth Amendment as extending First Amendment prohibitions to State governments, since then the Fourteenth Amendment has, for the most part, been interpreted that way.

For a recent example, see City of Erie, et al., v. Pap's A.M.. The question at hand in this case was whether an ordinance enacted by the city of Erie, Pennsylvania, violated the First Amendment. While the eventual decision was that the ordinance was constitutional, both sides seem to implicitly accept that the First Amendment (via the Fourteenth Amendment) applies to laws passed by the city of Erie.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is, if you're asking whether this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment can be defended purely from the text of the amendment and philosophy alone, I don't know. But it is certainly the way the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted in practice for the past several decades.

Yes, you do, I never tried to deny that. But once you have one, you don't need ANOTHER license to sell cigarettes, ATF agents will not come into your 7-11 and check over your tax stamps, and you are not required to record every pack of cigarettes sold, its serial number, who you sold it to, where they live, their age, height, weight, eye color, drivers license number, and dick size!

You know I just turn off my mind when somebody lists a radio talk show host as a source. I am going to take the position that this is inaccurate until I see the transcript.

Fair enough, I didn't notice Knox (who is, by the way, a credible source himself) had cited a 3rd party. I have done considerable digging, and while the 5th circuit's website acknowledges that oral arguments have been heard, it has no transcripts. I suppose we will have to wait until the opinion is published, but here is the 2nd Ammendmant Foundation's story, along with links to others. If you are interested in researching yourself, the case number is 99-10331.

Of course my resding of the second amendment says that only those in the militia can own guns. If you want a gun join the military.

"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't know about you, but to me, explicitly stating "The People" is a rather strong indication on just whose rights are being protected. The constitution is EXTREMELY specific in guaranteeing rights to the Government, the States, and the People, respectivly. If that ammendmant refered to the national guard (which, by the way, did not come into existance until 1917) the right would be reserved to the states, and not the people.

In addition to this, the Militia Act of 1903 readily defines what the militia is:

SEC. 1. That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective states... who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age and shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective states or territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve militia.

SEC. 2. That the vice-president of the United States... pilots... and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective States or territories shall be exempted from militia duty, without regard to age...

This was ammended by the National Defense Act of 1916, and later law, and the current law (title 10, section 311) can be found at The Cornell Law Library.

So, in a very real, and legal sense, I am a member of the militia. So are you, if you are a male US citizen between 17 and 45.

That's what the government does it collects information.

I find that statement to be truly offensive. It might be what it actually does, but in no way is that what it is SUPPOSED to do... I think Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1776, in an obscure document some people like to refer to as the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Again, I really don't need any more than this to tell me what our government is supposed to be. Do you?