Here's what I think about the argument over the Second Amendment...

[cherokeeprogressive]

Nowhere in the Constitution or any of its Amendments is the right to bear arms conferred upon citizens of the United States. In fact, the Bill of Rights isn't even ABOUT conferring rights. It's about limiting what the federal government can and cannot do. Look at the wording... "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "No soldier shall", "shall not be violated", and that's just the first four amendments. Nowhere in there do you read "the federal government, empowered by the states, does confer the right to "X" upon the Citizens of the United States".

The Second Amendment merely states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the federal government. This says to me that the right was considered to have already existed when the amendment was written.

You can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated militia" all you want. I think it's moot. Since you cannot find a place where the right to keep and bear arms is conferred upon the people, I believe it's inherent.

Now, back to your argument.

[slackmaster]

1. cherokeeprogressive and I often disagree, but not about this point

It raises my hackles whenever I read or hear someone saying something about the Constitution or Bill of Rights "granting" a right.

That's how things are done in Cuba, not here.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. I've actually tried to get the point across about the Bill of Rights before.

But it seems to go so far over most peoples' heads that all they hear are the engines of a 747 above the clouds.

I was going to post this OP in GD but I think there has been enough of a shitstorm over there to last a few years at least. It would be interesting though to see what the beautiful minds who can't bring themselves to visit the RKBA forum have to say about it. I'm guessing it would simply generate another shitstorm.

[Fredjust]

12. And exactly...

what's wrong with Cuba? They are a model of progress held down by hostile foreign powers.

[gejohnston]

13. Human Rights Watch puts it this way

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm

Not that Cuba doesn't some good things going for it, and yeah the cold warriors are still pissed off that Castro kicked out the mob and other exploiters. It is still an authoritarian police state.

[slackmaster]

14. The Cuban constitution enumerates all rights that Cuban citizens have

Rights are granted at the pleasure of government.

Under our system all rights are assumed to exist, except those that have been restricted through due process.

Two completely different views of the relationship between government and the people.

[Missycim]

22. I agree with you 100%

nt

[Hoyt]

2. Inherent for the puritan slave owners maybe. We should have evolved.

[gejohnston]

4. They weren't Puritans

many of them were Deists. I think Washington as an Atheist.

[Hoyt]

6. They were pretty stern and callous folks who didn't question slavery, prohibiting women from voting,

killing Native Americans for their land, and other talibanish stuff. Bout time we evolve.

[TPaine7]

9. Thomas Paine opposed slavery, as did Benjamin Franklin. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. John Adams was also very much opposed to slavery, as you can see here:

(Note: Robert J. Evans was an abolitionist)

TO ROBERT J. EVANS.

Quincy, 8 June, 1819.

I respect the sentiments and motives, which have prompted you to engage in your present occupation, so much, that I feel an esteem and affection for your person, as I do a veneration for your assumed signature of Benjamin Rush. The turpitude, the inhumanity, the cruelty, and the infamy of the African commerce in slaves, have been so impressively represented to the public by the highest powers of eloquence, that nothing that I can say would increase the just odium in which it is and ought to be held. Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. If, however, humanity dictates the duty of adopting the most prudent measures for accomplishing so excellent a purpose, the same humanity requires, that we should not inflict severer calamities on the objects of our commiseration than those which they at present endure, by reducing them to despair, or the necessity of robbery, plunder, assassination, and massacre, to preserve their lives, some provision for furnishing them employment, or some means of supplying them with the necessary comforts of life. The same humanity requires that we should not by any rash or violent measures expose the lives and property of those of our fellow-citizens, who are so unfortunate as to be surrounded with these fellow-creatures, by hereditary descent, or by any other means without their own fault. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave, though I have lived for many years in times, when the practice was not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character, and when it has cost me thousands of dollars for the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap.

If any thing should occur to me, which I think may assist you, I will endeavor to communicate it to you; but at an age, when

“From Marlborough’s eyes the streams of dotage flow,
And Swift expires a driveller and a show,”

very little can be expected from, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant.

From:

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856). 10 volumes. Vol. 10.

[Hoyt]

29. Benjamin had slaves. There weren't many of FF who did not have slaves. Few fought it at time.

[TPaine7]

36. Yes, He was born into surroundings of profound racism, but he rose above them

Benjamin Franklin on Slavery:

Toward the end of his life, he freed his slaves and became one of the most prominent abolitionists.

...

When he finally returned home in 1785, Franklin occupied a position only second to that of George Washington as the champion of American independence. Le Ray honored him with a commissioned portrait painted by Joseph Duplessis that now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. After his return, Franklin became an abolitionist, freeing both of his slaves. He eventually became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

...

In his later years, as Congress was forced to deal with the issue of slavery, Franklin wrote several essays that attempted to convince his readers of the importance of the abolition of slavery and of the integration of blacks into American society. These writings included:

* An Address to the Public, (1789)
* A Plan for Improving the Condition of the Free Blacks (1789), and
* Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim on the Slave Trade (1790).

In 1790, Quakers from New York and Pennsylvania presented their petition for abolition. Their argument against slavery was backed by the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society and its president, Benjamin Franklin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

[Hoyt]

37. I read about a Klansman who called himself a "civil rights activist". He claimed he had changed too.

Of course, he was still partial to confederate flags, guns, and racist posts.

[TPaine7]

39. Guns are not inherently racist. They existed before white people were in what is now the US,

and possibly before any people were here.

To class guns with confederate flags and racists posts is incorrect.

If you think Benjamin Franklin was pretending, we disagree, but that's ok.

[HALO141]

11. Evolution occurs over millions of years, not hundreds.

Throughout recorded history mankind has displayed the same weaknesses, faults and flaws. It's unreasonable to expect any discernable differences in the human animal over the last 236 years.

[Hoyt]

30. Sure thing, we'll just wait a million years for you guys to realize guns aren't the answer to much.

That would make you, the NRA, militias, etc., very happy.

[HALO141]

38. OK, is that a promise?

[gejohnston]

15. actually women did vote

in a lot of places, not all. Even then. So did free African Americans. Didn't question slavery? Look up Thomas Paine and John Jay.

[4th law of robotics]

25. They did question slavery

and at the time we had mostly stopped expanding in to Indian territory.

[Hoyt]

28. Yea, they questioned whether to count them as a whole person. You guys can't be serious.

[4th law of robotics]

31. Don't tell me this is yet another area where you revel in your own ignorance?

There was a fierce debate over slavery during the creation of the constitution. Many founders denounced the practice.

It just wasn't practical at the time to get rid of it since that would have driven out the southern states and the government was tenuous enough as is.

[Hoyt]

32. What was the outcome of all those "fierce debates" and when did slavery end? How about racism?

"Just wasn't practical . . . . . ."

Yea, and you guys are still using those "practical" BS arguments to delay restrictions on your guns.

[4th law of robotics]

33. Interesting. So the fact that there was a certain outcome

proves there was no debate.

TARP passed, proof there was no debate over it.

Obamacare (colloquially) is the law of the land. Everyone agreed to it then.

The war in Iraq happened. I guess the proves there was no opposition.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself with these kind of statements.

Yea, and you guys are still using those "practical" BS arguments to delay restrictions on your guns.

Banning guns is both impractical and undesirable.

Also not at all like slavery (that involves people, guns are just objects).

[Hoyt]

34. No, you guys treat guns "like people," even like relatives.

[4th law of robotics]

35. I do send mine a birthday card every year

my gun, not my relatives. They know when it's their birthday.

[tortoise1956]

42. The only reason that slavery was included in the constitution

was because the southern states threatened to leave the Union without it. If that had happened, we would probably be subjects of the Queen. As it was, the British came close to restoring their hegemony in 1812. Check your U.S. history...

[Hoyt]

44. The Constitution, essentially endorsed slavery. Heck, most of the founders "owned" humans.

One can try to rationalize it, but slavery was allowed to continue for almost another century.

Are you going to tell me next that the confederate flag is symbol of love for all?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. What does slavery have to do with the RKBA?

[Glaug-Eldare]

43. Just a historical note:

Free states did not want slaves counted at all, while slave states wanted them counted as full persons. The argument was how Congressional representation should be apportioned when slaves are known to be human beings, but don't enjoy the rights of citizens. The three-fifths compromise did not create "fractional persons," but decided that only that portion of the number of unfree persons should be counted.

[Hoyt]

45. I've heard that from the right wingers in southern states. They sound proud of it.

They are similarly proud of their guns, particularly the "assault/tactical" ones.

[Jenoch]

77. I'm fairly certain

that slavery has been abolished, women have the right to vote, and native Americans are not still being killed for their land. They are still owed a considerable sum of money for past treaties, court judgments, mineral rights, etc. but the 7th Calvary is no longer going after them (a good thing too as they got their ass handed to them).

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Nope. Washington wasn't an atheist.

Here are some quotes from Washington:

From his Farewell Address: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=15&page=transcript

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

And a diffeent speech

...in a speech to the Delaware chiefs, Washington said, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

from a book, Novak, Washington's God page 93

That doesn't sound like an atheist to me.

[TPaine7]

8. Let's take your logic seriously and apply it consistently, exactly as if it made sense.

Since the founders were "Puritan Slave Owners," the Second Amendment is void.

By the exact same premises and logic, so are the other Amendments, and government can legitimately:

*make laws respecting an establishment of religion
*prohibit the free exercise of religion
*forbid petitions for redress of grievances
*station troops in your home during peace time
*seize you, your papers and effects, and your property unreasonably
*require you to testify against yourself
*deny you a jury trial in felony cases
*take your property without recompense
*torture you

It's good to know where you stand, where the bankrupt, emotional logic of gun control leads. Alan Dershowitz was right:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#cite_ref-52

[Hoyt]

10. You know your rights are safe. Hopefully your guns will be restricted, and pethaps

you will evolve.

[TPaine7]

17. No I do not.

You know your rights are safe.

I know no such thing. Knowing that everything is OK; that we could never put people in concentration camps based on their race--as we have; that we could never have a president claim that he can kill Americans, torture, disappear people, eavesdrop on everyone, and the like; to assume that government can't take your land and sell it to someone else because their use will pay more taxes; to assume that states cannot suppress voting rights; to assume that police can't beat you to death because they feel like it, that is extremely foolish.

For two reasons. First, it's false and the evidence is all around you that your rights aren't safe. Secondly, the blind belief--in the faces of contrary proof--that your rights are not under attack (to the extent that they still exist) is what enables government to violate them so easily.

All of the above would be just as true for me if I agreed with you that guns should be restricted. It goes beyond guns, far beyond guns, even though you're wrong on that too.

[Hoyt]

18. What ever your gun rights really are,

they pale compared to other rights.

I just don't feel a lot of love/compassion for guns in public, and arming your house to fight off a militia. Reasonable guns at home, I can live with.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. That's probably the most reasonable post I've ever seen from you. But it's wrong...

All dimes have the same buying power at the cash register and a rose by any other name is but a rose.

When you start prioritizing rights, and allow some to become more important than others, you will surely start to lose them based on which ones the government believes you think are unimportant. You can take that to the bank. The government will take from you everything it can, starting with what you care about least.

[samsingh]

66. there is no evidence that the government will take away your rights

especially a democratically elected one

[rDigital]

74. 1930's Germany .gov was democratically elected. nt

[samsingh]

75. give me an fing break. alot of things happened at that time to get wwII GOING

one was clearly people only thinking about their own needs and ignoring the death of others.

i'm talking about democracies today.

[gejohnston]

76. more complex than that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power

[spin]

21. Out of curiosity are you at all concerned about the rights we have lost and are losing ...

because of our War on Terror?

Many posters on DU have expressed concern. Just two examples:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014152570

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002861299

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Guns at home only worry burglars and home invaders, not armed robbers.

The armed robber will be far more concerned with citizens legally carrying outside the home as they make his occupation far less safe.

Note for lurkers and new people: Hoyt has posted that he is a former armed robber. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[alabama_for_obama]

48. That explains a lot.

I wonder if he blames the guns for
making him do bad things and rob people?

[NewMoonTherian]

58. Or he's working to ensure safe and convenient working conditions for his colleagues. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

26. Rights are never safe

they are something that we should fight for constantly.

If we become complacent they will certainly disappear over time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Now the government is constrained from abridging this right of any sane non-felon citizen.

But I doubt that this is what you meant by evolved.

I'm of two minds about gun control, but I'm unambiguous that if we're going to cede our rights, it needs to be for a real damn good reason.

[Reasonable_Argument]

41. It's not that they approved of slavery

It's just that, in their opinion, forming the union was more important than dealing with that issue at the moment.

[-..__...]

3. Buuuh... buuuh... but...

that only applies to members of a "well regulated militia".

I just know I read it here somewhere on DU.

Didn't you get the memo?

[TPaine7]

5. Exactly. n/t

[X_Digger]

16. Here's some support for that interpretation, and good onya for seeing it!

The preamble to the bill of rights-

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? Not 'the people'. Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government.

[ellisonz]

62. So clearly in stating that the purpose is "a well-regulated militia"

The power of government to act in favor of the public safety and general welfare of the people remains the overriding concern in "the Free State."

Fucking insurrectionists.

[X_Digger]

63. How is it that a 'declaratory and restrictive clause' against the government limits 'the people'?

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- would you assume that stores only sell soda? Or that's all I was getting?

No, being out of soda is the reason, not the extent.

[ellisonz]

67. These are not stand-alone commandments, these are amendments to the Constitution.

The construction is clear: the security of the government depends on "a well-regulated militia" and for that reason and that reason alone the standard of "infringement" is applicable. The Constitution clearly states that overriding concerns for government is social contract, not a radical notion of personal sovereignty:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Your soda analogy is fail: school districts may choose to prohibit it's sale, and if you want to put alcohol into it be prepared for a lot of regulation.

to Scalia logic.

[X_Digger]

69. How is a limit on the government (the bill of rights) a limit on 'the people'?

You added the 'alone' -- that's an invention created out of whole cloth. You can't get there from here, not from a document whose purpose is restrictive to the government.

My soda analogy is apt- there is a reason I'm going to the store, but neither what I might buy nor what stores sell are limited by the statement.

Let me try a different one, since you seem to have a problem with sodas-

"Pizzas being necessary for late-night study sessions, the right of people to grow and cook tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- are tomatoes only to be used for pizza? No, the right to grow and cook tomatoes is protected, regardless of purpose- because having the ability to make pizzas is important.

[4th law of robotics]

27. I agree with your assessment

and the people claiming the 2nd is about establishing a government run military for self-defense are being a bit dishonest.

No other right deals with what the government may do. Likewise arming a national army was both A) an accepted practice of government and B) concerning to the founders.

[dickthegrouch]

46. But the arms they had were muskets and cannon

The revolver was invented by Samuel Colt in 1836
The Winchester repeating rifle was invented by Oliver Winchester in 1855

The second amendment was adopted in 1791

The constitutional writers had no more concept of the multiple round magazine than they had of cars or electricity or many other trappings of modern life.

The Geneva Conventions require all combatants to be distinguishable from the uninvolved (Protocol I, Article 44, paragraph 3, and Protocol I, Article 44). I think everyone carrying a gun in a public place should be in uniform to ensure that they are acting within the law of the Conventions. (Added on edit) Which would give us the ability to throw away the key on anyone not acting in accordance with the Conventions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Full of sound and stupidity, signifying nothing...

So all they had were muskets and cannon. Well maybe, just maybe, they were aware the world could change as it had a hundred times in their own lifetimes and so they added a mechanism to the Constitution whereby it could be changed. Just maybe.

Don't like the Second Amendment? First understand my point about the right to bear arms existing before the Second Amendment was written, its intent being the prevention of the federal government from taking that right from its citizens. Then go about getting it changed using the means provided to you in the Constitution. Oh, and, good luck with that.

As for the Geneva Conventions drivel... you would consider "everyone carrying a gun in a public place" to be a combatant of some kind and so would require them to wear some kind of military uniform? Under penalty of lifetime imprisonment? You, my friend, are in the grip of a very irrational fear and I think there's a good chance you need some kind of counseling.

I don't think I've ever read such stupid shit.

[dickthegrouch]

52. When one finger points out, three fingers point back

"I think there's a good chance you need some kind of counseling"

My fear is that of being caught between two sets of fools shooting at each other with neither one knowing exactly who the bad guys are and who the "good" guys are.

That's not irrational.

[gejohnston]

54. if you are in the middle

you would already know, since you would be there from the start. Otherwise, you are saying you walked into the crossfire. That is never wise.

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. So you're standing by your implication that anyone carrying a gun is a combatant and therefore

subject to Geneva Convention rules? Or was that a bit of hyperbole on your part?

[dickthegrouch]

56. Re-read what I wrote

"in a public place"

Everyone carrying in a public place who thinks they might want to defend themselves is inherently potentially a combatant, so yes, I stand by that.

The gun proponents think if a few others had been carrying in Aurora, they might have save people. I think it would have been a free-for-all with no-one able to identify the "good" guys or the bad guys (especially in the darkened theatre).

Even if there were only one bad guy and say 5 "good" guys in the theatre, they'd have no idea which of the 5 of them were "good" or bad, bullets would be flying in all directions and even the cops would have a hard time sorting out which side any of them were really on. I'd much rather have no guns in that public place in the first place. If I can't have that, I'll have all of them self-identified and I'll choose whether to ask for my money back when there's too many in any one place. Perhaps I'll soon ask for gun-free auditoriums just like I ask for smoke-free ones.

But as many other posters have suggested, the gun lovers don't feel it is necessary to advance any solutions whatsoever. Therefore I am thinking slightly out of the box to assist in the solution finding. I despise anyone who can't see that there is a problem and it MUST be solved.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. NO matter how broad the brush is that you paint with, it always misses some spots...

and deposits too much of your paint in others. "The gun proponents" would be a case in point. Do you consider everyone who supports RKBA to be a "gun proponent"? It sounds like you do but I'll let you answer that.

Your thinking slightly out of the box means you'd put everyone carrying a firearm in a public place but not wearing a uniform in a box for the rest of their lives. That's thinking out of the box alright.

Here's a solution: Put everyone who commits a crime with a gun in your box for the rest of their lives without the possibility for parole. Stop coddling criminals. Use a gun, go to jail for life.

[dickthegrouch]

64. 100,000 gun injuries a year is acceptable to you????

It is not to me.
That is the current consequence of waiting until some idiot shoots someone before jailing them.

I wonder if you'd be so calm about it if someone in your family was injured by an idiot.

[ErikO]

68. Link?

I'd love to know the source of that number.

[dickthegrouch]

72. Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

I agree I lumped together injuries and deaths from different years but let's just assume that the numbers are relatively static (rather than going back up as the graphs on the same page suggest).

52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007.

52,447+23,237+31,224 = 106,908

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. "That is the current consequence of waiting until some idiot shoots someone before jailing them."

Are you fucking serious? You seriously would jail someone pre-emptively?

Step awaaaaaaay from the shovel. You're only digging a deeper hole.

Personally, I think anyone who would even SUGGEST jailing someone that hasn't violated the law YET should be locked up for the rest of their lives.

You're a piece o' work, grouchy dick. Yes indeed you are.

[dickthegrouch]

71. It's not pre-emptive at all

They fail to follow the proposed rules and they go to jail. Simple.

Very close to personal insults in this thread. As the lawyers say "Watch yourself".
"you're a piece of work", "in need of counselling"

[X_Digger]

49. Err.. Yes, they had multiple round magazines, even then..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815.

The rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lbs (4.5 kg), about the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .46 caliber ball[2] at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls.

[Angleae]

51. They didn't have radio, TV, or the internet either.

Yet all 3 are upheld under the 1st amendment

[dickthegrouch]

53. Speech is a whole lot different from murder /nt

[xxenderwigginxx]

60. Only because you like the 1st amendment.

Perhaps one day it will become unpopular and we can just correct that annoying little right that the SCOTUS has misinterpreted.
I think anti- 2A proponents fail to see the inherit hypocrisy, or danger in so casually throwing out the parts of the BoR that they don't like. There are plenty of evil men in the world who would love to take it from you, which (ironically) is why we have the 2nd amendment. If you honestly do not see why the founders restricted the feds ability to disarm citizens, then you are ignorant of human nature and world history.

[alabama_for_obama]

61. there are plenty of people injured every day...

By right wingers ranting like the crazy people they are. They are the reason why our healthcare system is fucked up. they are the reason why many people have such an intense distrust of their government and by proxy their fellow citizens. They are the reason people get all amped up and we get lied into wars of agression. plenty of bad shit happens and people die and are miserable because of abuse of the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment. Probably many more than will ever be killed as a result of people owning guns.

[alabama_for_obama]

65. but the presses they had were hand operated and used ink!

NO FREEDOM TO PRINT THINGS ON YOUR PRINTER, OR POST THINGS TO THE INTERNET FOR YOU!

[xxenderwigginxx]

59. WELL SAID

The Bill of Rights is directed at defining what the government CANNOT do, not stating what the citizens can.

[eallen]

73. That is a right-wing argument that ignores the 14th amendment.

It was the case, in fact, that in the early days of the Republic, the Bill of Rights set no limits on state law. States censored speech. States established religion. States seized property without compensating former owners. The Bill of Rights was, as you point out, interpreted as solely restricting the federal government.

Fortunately, John Bingham, a radical Republican during reconstruction, pushed through the 14th amendment to the Constitution, one express purpose of which was to make the Bill of Rights a guarantor of actual citizens' rights, and not just a limitation on federal action. The courts didn't initially read it that way. Eventually, though, they came around.

That is why, today, the state of Texas cannot ban anti-Christian writings, and the state of Tennessee cannot establish Christianity as its official religion.

That also is why many on the far right hate the 14th amendment.

That also is why the 2nd amendment does indeed confer an right on individual citizens. The Supreme Court incorporated it into the 14th amendment in <i>McDonald v. Chicago</i>. You may not like that. I would point out that it is consistent with a century of 14th amendment jurisprudence, incorporating much of the rest of the Bill of Rights.