tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post2029804100038515254..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: A Corrected Second Amendment timeline for FWMAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23528455793015976652011-08-25T13:55:59.270+02:002011-08-25T13:55:59.270+02:00TS, what about the issue of Standing armies?
&quo...TS, what about the issue of Standing armies?<br /><br /><i>"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."</i> (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) <br /><br />Or<br /><br /><i>7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.</i>Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59816669622056345522011-08-25T13:09:43.745+02:002011-08-25T13:09:43.745+02:00TS as far as I know Occum’s Razor is not a legal p...TS as far as I know Occum’s Razor is not a legal principle.<br /><br />Your last paragraph shows that you totally missed the point.<br /><br />Reread Patrick Henry's speeches to the Virginia Legislature to see you are wrong.<br /><br />Also, the legilsative history is available. Nowhere is the belief expressed that all the citizenry, not just those in the militia should be armed.<br /><br />I would also not that quite a few people wanted to be exempt from Militia service and did not want to bear arms.<br /><br />Furthermore, your piece is merely opinion.<br /><br />Nowhere do you provide a facutal basis for your comments.<br /><br />Please find statements and cites to back up your position.<br /><br />Otheriwse, you wasted your time producing gibberish.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-72244236911621658672011-08-25T03:10:17.348+02:002011-08-25T03:10:17.348+02:00As promised, my late response.
Laci: “Is that sim...As promised, my late response.<br /><br />Laci: “Is that simple enough for you to understand?”<br /><br />No, I am afraid not. My answer, as well as the Heller court’s answer, is the simple answer. It takes an experienced lawyer well versed in quotes to attempt to tackle the arduous task of spinning it into; “’the people’ doesn’t mean the people”. Occum’s Razor is not on your side. Again, if the right was limited to the militia, who o’ why didn’t they just say “…the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?<br /><br />Laci: “As I like to point out, The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the people", but did the entire population take part in the drafting of the document,or was it the representatives of the people who did that task?”<br /><br />Well, did the document pertain to the people they were representing, or just themselves? “The people” in the preamble refers to the citizens of the United States; else the constitution would only affect those dead people who signed it and none of us would be bound by it. Right?<br /><br />Laci: “DO criminals have the right to arms?”<br /><br />It is well established that some rights can be lost. The basic most fundamental right that this country was founded on is freedom. Yet, sometimes we lock people up in prison- at times for life. The key is that we take the removal of rights very serious and have due process checks when we attempt to do so. It shouldn’t be easy.<br /><br />Laci: “So, you are saying that the phrase: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State Was intended to be without effect,that is it is a mere surplusage?”<br /><br />Of course not. The founding fathers believed in a strong militia and wanted them to be well armed and skilled. But that doesn’t mean that the right does not belong to the people. With a right that belongs to “the people” there could be as many armed citizens as the free market allowed, and that they could keep and bear personal arms so that they could practice as much as desired on their own time. That certainly yields a stronger militia pool (not to mention cheaper).<br /><br />Speaking about surplusage, why bother with the second amendent when Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the constitution already grants congress the power to organize and arm the militia? Are you saying a whole amendment to the bill of rights is mere surplusage? Or is it completely separate from Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 and affirms an individual right of the citizens to keep and bear arms- which the aforementioned clause does not?TSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25097691722552043122011-08-17T22:05:49.779+02:002011-08-17T22:05:49.779+02:00reread previous comments.reread previous comments.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9447852532080710102011-08-17T22:01:03.197+02:002011-08-17T22:01:03.197+02:00Laci - until you acknowledge that the current law ...Laci - until you acknowledge that the current law as defined by the Supreme Court is that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms then you are the one that is ignoring reality. You can bluster away with all of your court cases and legal history, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court ruled that it is an individual right and that is what it will be until the Supreme Court says otherwise or a new Constitutional Amendment changes it.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-82815950933861122502011-08-17T21:52:35.622+02:002011-08-17T21:52:35.622+02:00Reread previous response.Reread previous response.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-68016263514911636132011-08-17T21:45:12.788+02:002011-08-17T21:45:12.788+02:00Laci it is not my assertion it was the assertion o...Laci it is not my assertion it was the assertion of a majority of the Supreme Court as written by the majority decision.<br /><br />Now you may think it is wrong, but we don't have to prove that it is right. It is what it is and until another Supreme Court rules otherwise then it is settled law. Feel free to keep writing the arguements for the next time this comes up in court. <br /><br />Maybe you will be picked to argue the case.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-66675512285777224472011-08-17T21:21:30.647+02:002011-08-17T21:21:30.647+02:00Again, Asked and Answered.
Ever think that the He...Again, Asked and Answered.<br /><br />Ever think that the Heller Majority may be mistaken? <br /><br />Additionally, you neglect Stevens's dissent that contradicts your assertion.<br /><br />There is an overwhelming prepondence of decisions made prior to Heller that contradict you assertion that "no previous court ruled that the 2nd Amendment was anything other than an individual right." Have you read and understood the <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/historic-document-fun.html" rel="nofollow">Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) decision</a>?<br /><br />That directly contradicts your asssertion that "no previous court ruled that the 2nd Amendment was anything other than an individual right."<br /><br />I would submit that you look at the cases in <a href="no%20previous%20court%20ruled%20that%20the%202nd%20Amendment%20was%20anything%20other%20than%20an%20individual%20right" rel="nofollow">this list</a> with the exception of <i>District of Columbia v. Heller</i>, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) and <i>U.S. v. Emerson,</i> 270 F.3d 203 (5 th Cir. 2001), the cases follow the Collective right interpretation as expounded in Sandidge. This includes <i>U.S. v. Rybar</i>,103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996).<br /><br />The last case stated:<br /><i>Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply<br />wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second<br />Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior<br />federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have<br />neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such<br />freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on<br />several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes<br />no absolute right to firearms. See United States v. Graves, 554<br />F.2d 65, 66 n. 2 (3d Cir.1977); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia,<br />477 F.2d 610 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839, 843, 94 S.Ct.<br />89, 104, 38 L.Ed.2d 74, 81 (1973). Federal attempts at firearms<br />regulation have also consistently withstood challenge under the<br />Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020; Warin, 530<br />F.2d at 108; United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber<br />Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290 n. 5 (7th Cir.1974); <br />United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974); <br />Cases, 131 F.2d at 923. We see no reason why section 922(o)<br />should be an exception.</i><br /><br />Additionally, since I have repeatedly answered this question, unless you can come up with a new question or better response than "I want it to be right", I will not continue this futile cycle.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-18161711892457700882011-08-17T21:06:38.213+02:002011-08-17T21:06:38.213+02:00The Heller decision specifically says that Miller ...The Heller decision specifically says that Miller did not establish the 2nd Amendment as a civic or collective right. According to the Heller decision, no previous court ruled that the 2nd Amendment was anything other than an individual right. If this is the current ruling of the Supreme Court, then I do not see how you think this is unsettled. The Supreme Court has settled it for now. Until another ruling says otherwise, the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-16242379320246451652011-08-17T20:54:03.584+02:002011-08-17T20:54:03.584+02:00What you have said demonstrates a lack of understa...What you have said demonstrates a lack of understanding of law and does not demonstrate an understanding of a valid legal distinction.<br /><br />To put it simply<br /><br />Miller v. US --unanimous court holding following the Civic Right interpretation of the Second Amendment.<br /><br />Heller-McDonald--5 Justices change the law to allow for registered firearms to be kept in the home and 4 follow the Civic Right interpretation.<br /><br />This unsettles the law with both viewpoints being legally valid.<br /><br />That makes your comment "I believe I have, the Supreme Court says so. That is concrete enough even for Brady."<br />an absurdity.<br /><br />You do not appreciate the significance of Stevens' dissent in the legal process.<br /><br />I hope this helps clarify your failure to understand what I am saying.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-56589401968768489312011-08-17T20:32:38.063+02:002011-08-17T20:32:38.063+02:00"Can you offer something more concrete than j...<i>"Can you offer something more concrete than just your opinion, FWM?</i><br /><br />I believe I have, the Supreme Court says so. That is concrete enough even for Brady.<br /><br /><i>"What are your legal qualifications to criticise my opinion?"</i><br /><br />Legal qualifications? To comment on a blog? Bwahahahahahah!<br /><br />Good one! Thanks for the laugh.<br /><br />You really need to go outside or have a date or something. No seriously, go do something real and not on the internet before you have some sort of a melt-down.<br /><br />At the very least you ought to try practicing law in a courtroom or someplace other than an anti-gun blog. You might even meet real people.FatWhiteManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08946272184958991397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-82416152459465470832011-08-17T17:36:52.546+02:002011-08-17T17:36:52.546+02:00"Can you offer something more concrete than j..."Can you offer something more concrete than just your opinion, FWM?"<br /><br />I think he offered the latest rulings by the Supreme Court. You seem to ignore them since in your vast knowledge you don't think they are valid. Again, we go with the current rulings as they are not what you think they should be.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20376047463841975122011-08-17T17:18:04.160+02:002011-08-17T17:18:04.160+02:00Can you offer something more concrete than just yo...Can you offer something more concrete than just your opinion, FWM?<br /><br />What are your legal qualifications to criticise my opinion?<br /><br />You just blow a lot of smoke and encourage me to keep writing.<br /><br />I'm waiting for you to blow up like Mr. Creosote.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-65152125333047838272011-08-17T17:14:36.198+02:002011-08-17T17:14:36.198+02:00"Is that simple enough for you to understand?...<i>"Is that simple enough for you to understand?<br /><br />As I said, the "individual right" interpretation does not withstand scrutiny."</i><br /><br />I think if you total up your postings and comments here, your collective-civic-kumbaya right argument is longer than the Heller and McDonald decisions combined. However, after all that typing and name calling, it really does not matter.<br /><br />Fortunately, the nation looks to the real justices of the Supreme Court for guidance instead of someone that plays one on a blog.<br /><br />Supreme Court = Individual Right.<br />Laci = No one really cares.<br /><br />Someone please stick a fork in him, he's done.<br /><br />*sigh* Guess you'll call me some more names now.FatWhiteManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08946272184958991397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58105340598478265362011-08-17T13:51:45.554+02:002011-08-17T13:51:45.554+02:00Simple short answer for you, TS, The term the peo...Simple short answer for you, TS, The term the people in the Second Amendment could refer to two things--the entire citizenry of the United States which includes criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, the insane and so forth since the term is not limited in any of the other clauses.<br /><br />Or the term is in some way limited to a certain class of people.<br /><br />Heller-MCDonald limits it to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”<br /><br />The text of the Second Amendment limits it to a Well-Regulated Militia.<br /><br />Since Marbury v. Madison says that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect", then it must have some relation to the Second Clause. Hence, the right is limited to the Militia. As Miller said:<br /><br /><i>With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (The Article I, Section 8, clause 15 & 16 Militias), the declaration and guarantee (both part) of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.</i><br /><br />Is that simple enough for you to understand?<br /><br />As I said, the "individual right" interpretation does not withstand scrutiny.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-61142845632121341302011-08-17T13:37:01.023+02:002011-08-17T13:37:01.023+02:00One down, you're next TS.
Simple answer--
Peo...One down, you're next TS.<br /><br />Simple answer--<br />People v. Federal Government<br /><br />The phrase "the people" is a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution. This term "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.<br /><br />As I like to point out, The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the people", but did the entire population take part in the drafting of the document,or was it the representatives of the people who did that task? <br /><br />But you didn't answer the question--What is the scope of this individual right you keep mentioning. Since it refers to "the people" which in Amendments IV-VII applies to criminal defendants? DO criminals have the right to arms? Likewise, the insane are able to exercise these rights as a part of the people.<br /><br />Heller-McDonald still limits the term. Instead of using the text to limit it to the Militia, protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, Heller at 63. <br /><br />You also neglect my question about:<br /><br /><i>So, you are saying that the phrase:<br /><br /><b>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State</b><br /><br />Was intended to be without effect,that is it is a mere surplusage? Despite what Marbury v.Madison says about this?</i><br /><br />One can only say that the people is not related to the militia if they are going to ignore this clause.<br /><br />But since Marbury v. Madison says that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect", then it must have some relation to the Second Clause. Hence, the right is limited to the Militia. As Miller said:<br /><br /><i>With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (The Article I, Section 8, clause 15 & 16 Militias), the declaration and guarantee (both part) of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.</i><br /><br />Is that simple enough for you to understand?Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-48244044666659899692011-08-17T07:08:25.893+02:002011-08-17T07:08:25.893+02:00Laci: “Are you saying that it is not within the po...Laci: “Are you saying that it is not within the power of the Federal Government to arm or not arm the militia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16?”<br /><br />I am curious as to why in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 the founding fathers used the words “the militia” to describe arming the militia, but in the second amendment used the words “the people” to describe arming the militia. We know they didn’t forget about the militia, since they just mentioned them in the preamble- no, they chose to use a different word than “militia” to describe to whom the right belongs. <br /><br />Could it be that: 1) it is within the power of the Federal Government to arm the militia. 2) The Militia is necessary for a free state. 3) The people (that’s us) have a right to keep and bear arms.<br /><br />We know that they are capable of using clear language when referring to the government arming the militia by using the word “militia” as the subject:<br /><br /><i>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…</i><br /><br /><br />Laci, I am expecting at least a 1000 word tirade mixed with legal citations in response. Just so you know, I’ll be away from computer for a bit, so I may not respond for a while. I’ll ask you kindly to refrain from the harsh name calling as I am not as thick skinned as Fat White Man. I am a delicate flower.TSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58952891795468255542011-08-17T03:22:34.648+02:002011-08-17T03:22:34.648+02:00Thick White Man, are you capable of saying somethi...Thick White Man, are you capable of saying something intelligent or is that beyond your limited intellect?<br /><br />And try to back up what you say with facts. I know that it's hard to backup your idiotic bullshit with facts, but try.<br /><br />Not Timothy McVeigh, but someone like him (white,male, US Citizen who happens to want to fight the US government).<br /><br />I repeat my questions in the hope that you will say something worth reading, but I am fairly certain that you will say something stupid.<br /><br />So, you are saying that the phrase:<br /><br /><i>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State</i><br /><br />Was intended to be without effect,that is it is a mere surplusage? Despite what <i>Marbury v.Madison</i> says about this?<br /><br />Are you saying that it is not within the power of the Federal Government to arm or not arm the militia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16?<br /><br />Are you saying that when Henry made the comment "The great object is, that every man be armed" that it had no relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16?<br /><br />What is the scope of this individual right you keep mentioning. Since it refers to "the people" which in Amendments IV-VII applies to criminal defendants? DO criminals have the right to arms?<br /><br />What are arms? firearms? High explosives? Poison gas? nuclear weapons? Switchblades? Brass knuckles? Aren't arms referring to military weapons?Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-85294942676059590072011-08-17T03:11:22.972+02:002011-08-17T03:11:22.972+02:00"Thick White Man, Does a terrorist like Timot...<i>"Thick White Man, Does a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh have Second Amendment rights? After all,doesn't he qualify as a member of the class 'the People'?"</i><br /><br />Nope. I'm convinced he is dead.FatWhiteManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08946272184958991397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63865103885302860912011-08-17T02:46:54.418+02:002011-08-17T02:46:54.418+02:00Thick White Man, Does a terrorist like Timothy McV...Thick White Man, Does a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh have Second Amendment rights? After all,doesn't he qualify as a member of the class "the People"?Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20360609742224777392011-08-17T02:40:06.240+02:002011-08-17T02:40:06.240+02:00I know this is over your head Thick White Man, but...I know this is over your head Thick White Man, but...<br /><br />The Heller-McDonald decisions neglect the manner that the Framers used the phrase “the people” in these constitutional provisions. In the First Amendment, no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship. It grants the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of “the people.” These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert.<br /><br />As used in the Fourth Amendment, the term “the people” describes the class of persons protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by Government officials. It is true that the Fourth Amendment describes a right that need not be exercised in any collective sense. But that observation does not settle the meaning of the phrase “the people” when used in the Second Amendment . For, as we have seen, the phrase means something quite different in the Petition and Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment . Although the abstract definition of the phrase “the people” could carry the same meaning in the Second Amendment as in the Fourth Amendment , the preamble of the Second Amendment suggests that the uses of the phrase in the First and Second Amendments are the same in referring to a collective activity. By way of contrast, the Fourth Amendment describes a right against governmental interference rather than an affirmative right to engage in protected conduct, and so refers to a right to protect a purely individual interest. As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-17021173888356672592011-08-17T02:35:28.201+02:002011-08-17T02:35:28.201+02:00I guess I have to ask my questions in extremely si...I guess I have to ask my questions in extremely simple language.<br /><br />Also,try to back up what you say with facts, Thick White Man. I'm only seeing you parrot the same old tired bullshit.<br /><br />So, you are saying that the phrase:<br /><br /><i>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State</i><br /><br />Was intended to be without effect,that is it is a mere surplusage? Despite what Marbury v.Madison says about this?<br /><br />Are you saying that it is not within the power of the Federal Government to arm or not arm the militia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16?<br /><br />Are you saying that when Henry made the comment "The great object is, that every man be armed" that it had no relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16?<br /><br />What is the scope of this individual right you keep mentioning. Since it refers to "the people" which in Amendments IV-VII applies to criminal defendants? DO criminals have the right to arms?<br /><br />What are arms? firearms? High explosives? Poison gas? nuclear weapons? Switchblades? Brass knuckles? Aren't arms referring to military weapons?<br /><br />The problem is that can only repeat what you have been told.<br /><br />No matter how absurd what you are saying from your ignorance turns out to be.<br /><br />I'm surprised you haven't started saying that the Government owes you an assault rifle because the Government has to arm the militia according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.<br /><br />Yeah,you can get your assault rifle--join the National Guard!Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-70605903708347702011-08-17T01:25:59.150+02:002011-08-17T01:25:59.150+02:00"Thick White Man, that in future, I would ask...<i>"Thick White Man, that in future, I would ask you to address my question rather than attack me with no basis."</i><br /><br />Really, after all the name calling you just accused me of attacking you with no basis? That's real funny considering the only thing you could call a verbal attack from me was repeating one thing that you had already said to me.<br /><br /><i>"How does one incorporate something that refers to FEDERAL (article 1, Section 8, clause 16), NOT STATE powers under the Constitution?"</i><br /><br />You don't. We were discussing incorporating the 2nd Amendment which is instead an individual right like the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.FatWhiteManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08946272184958991397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23822179478807144812011-08-16T22:36:15.399+02:002011-08-16T22:36:15.399+02:00It just occurred to me, Thick White Man, how can y...It just occurred to me, Thick White Man, how can you tell the difference between yourself and your three year old?<br /><br />I think the three year old shows more knowledge!<br /><br />Please answer my question!<br /><br />How does one incorporate something that refers to <b>FEDERAL (article 1, Section 8, clause 16), NOT STATE</b> powers under the Constitution?Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-56647044251630549902011-08-16T22:32:20.167+02:002011-08-16T22:32:20.167+02:00hould also add, Thick White Man, that in future, I...hould also add, Thick White Man, that in future, I would ask you to address my question rather than attack me with no basis.<br /><br />Again, my question for you is:<br /><br />How does one incorporate something that refers to <b>FEDERAL, NOT STATE</b> powers under the Constitution?<br /><br />It makes no point in calling me mentally defective if you keep failing to answer my question.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.com