reply to post by Scytherius
It is the single most telling comment on the state of the insanity gripping the dying United States when people who know nothing quote the
Constitution and claim it is abundantly clear. I was a Prosecutor and Defense attorney for 25 years and litigated my fair share of constitutional
issues in the ED of VA and up to SCOTUS.
Do you honestly believe that appealing to your own authority makes your argument any less fallacious? Look, you can hide in a cave all day long and
only come out of that cave after the sun has set, and then you can point to the nighttime sky and declare that the sun is not as abundantly clear as
so many are claiming, therefore they must be ignorant and insane, but anyone actually listening to your diagnosis would be tragically guilty of
allowing the inmates to run the asylum.
This is precisely what we have done in this country, we have allowed the inmates to run the asylum. You can be impressed with your law degree all you
want, sport. If you cannot understand the difference between what is lawful and what is legal, then your law degree is just a useless piece of paper,
and the money you collected from the municipality or state you prosecuted in for "services rendered" was obviously theft.
It is also more than telling that a person who claims to have prosecuted for the State of Virginia makes no mention at all of Section 13 of the
Declaration of Rights within the Virginia State Constitution:
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state,
therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as
dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
This Section is even more ABUNDANTLY CLEAR than the Second Amendment which for the sane is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
I should not have to lecture a person who claims to have been a prosecutor for more than 25 years that the rules of statutory construction require
that each and every word be given significance, and not just what is written be given significance, but what has not been written should be given
In Section 13, what has certainly not been written is that the State of Virginia, as a civil power, has been granted the authority to determine what
type of arms of the people can keep and bear, and in fact, just like the ABUNDANTLY CLEAR Second Amendment, expressly prohibits government from
infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.
That Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution goes even further than the Second Amendment in explaining why this right exists should not be ignored.
Presumably, as a prosecutor for the State of Virginia, you ignored it on a regular basis. If we are to take you at your word in this post of yours,
then presumably you ignored the oath of office you took to protect and defend these Constitutions, and you did so in order to be a passionate advocate
for a handful of usurpers greedily aggregating power. What really gets my goat is that as a prosecutor, you would disingenuously represent yourself
as an advocate of the people, all the while gleefully pissing all over their rights. That is, if we are to take your post as true.
This Amendment (as with most) is far from clear. That doesn't mean it is utterly vague, but SCOTUS hasn't been able to agree on this Amendment for
over 200 years.
It is always the tax feeders who have insinuated themselves into government that make the argument that "most" of the Amendments - and when
Amendment is used in this regard it is understood what these government hacks mean is the Bill of Rights - are "far from clear". Even a good
magician can be caught using sleight of hand to make reality appear as if it is something other than what it really is, but a bad magician is just
plain embarrassing to watch. You come off as one of these bad magicians. Your rabbit out of the hat becomes SCOTUS, which is quite the cumbersome
rabbit, and the weight of that Court only undoes your act.
When you claim that the Supreme Court hasn't been able to agree on this Amendment for over 200 years, you are either a grossly over paid attorney, or
you are lying and hoping that your arrogant appeal to authority (you) will be enough to convince people that they cannot be sure of that which is self
It is not the Supreme Court that keeps disagreeing with itself on the rulings it has made regarding the Second Amendment, and your gross exaggeration
of "over 200 years" of jurisprudence regarding this Amendment is also more than telling.
It was not until 1939 in United States v Miller
that the Supreme
Court first addressed any issues regarding the Second Amendment...unless you want to count Justice Story's misattribution of the Fifth Amendment when
speaking of the Second Amendment in Huston v Moore
understand? Hell, Justice Story was an imminent legal scholar and yet, he is forever on record for stupidly referring to the Fifth Amendment as if it
were the Second. Even the bright judges make mistakes. Further, 1939 was only 72 years ago, not over 200 years. A prosecuting attorney prone to
gross hyperbole does not bode well at all for the people.
The Supreme Court, in rendering their decisions in both District
of Columbia v Heller
, and McDonald v Chicago
, did not reverse what was held in
United States v Miller, so what you mean by disagreement, can only mean, and that is by giving you the benefit of the doubt, that these rulings were
not unanimous decisions. Of course, even by giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is what you mean by disagreement, it is
disingenuous at best, since unanimous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are not all that common.
And the history of this Amendment (it's legislative history) is such that it is MUCH more about the U.S. having the ability to call up an already
armed National Guard than it does to carry a concealed weapon at a Church or College or at a bar. If it was so damned clear, then all those SCOTUS
decisions would be 9-0. They weren't. Most were 53 or 6-3/
Your use of the term "National Guard" is beyond disingenuous. If the Founders - and if you knew a damn thing about the "legislative history" of
the Second Amendment, I wouldn't have to explain this to you - intended to mean National Guard they would have said so, but as the "legislative
history" bears out, the Federalists were in strong disagreement with the Anti Federalist regarding the enumeration of rights all together. For the
Federalists, the idea that rights needed to be enumerated was a dangerous gambit, many of these Founders either being lawyers themselves, or
intimately aware of the priest class lawyer sect that existed, knew full well what smug attorneys would do with such an enumeration and given your
post, their prescience is to be lauded.
James Madison is generally accepted to be the author of the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment. So, rather than post a plethora of quotes
from the Founders regarding the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment let's just keep those quotes limited to Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to
arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people
The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone,"
Federalist Paper #46
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms."
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses
the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of
officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest
assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it."
I own guns and believe people should be allowed to own them for home protection.
Of course a government lackey, and a willfully ignorant prosecutor would discuss about the right to keep and bear arms in terms of what government
"allows". God protect the People of the Great State of Virginia from the likes of you!
How pathetic can you be, as a prosecutor for the State of Virginia that it takes a member of an online community residing in a different state to
point out to you what Virginia's Constitution has to say about what is "allowed":
Section 1. Equality and rights of men. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when
they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their post erity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with
the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. People the source of power. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their
trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
One would have to fairly presume you are more than aware of the text and meaning of these two sections. Of course, I suppose you would like to argue
that the meaning is not so clear, but if this is so, why even bother to have people such as prosecutors take an oath of office to protect and defend
this Constitution, since meaning cannot be reasonably derived from it? Nope, you know better I think, and you make your arguments not because you
genuinely believe that meaning cannot be reasonably discerned from legislation, but because you willfully employ priest class lawyer tricks that can
only confound and astound the simplest of minds.
But in all my years of Prosecuting I had EXACTLY ONE case where someone was able to defend themselves with a gun. I had about 20 cases where people
were accidentally hurt or killed (usually kids) because some gun owner was either drunk or didn't keep the guns locked up, etc ...
Anecdotal evidence offered up from the poster who - if we are to believe your post - willfully pissed all over the oath of office took to defend and
protect the Constitution?
But when you talk about something as utterly complex as the Constitution and act like it is "clear", you fly in the face of reason, intelligence and
over 200 years of case law in the United States. It is this attitude that is KILLING the United States. It's as though you are telling us how clear
and easy it is to perform brain surgery.
Now you're comparing yourself to a brain surgeon? Please! Get the hell over yourself, a brain surgeon you are not. All law is simple, true,
universal, and absolute. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it is law, that legislation is intended to somehow protect the rights of
individuals. Any act of legislation not doing this, but instead presuming an excess of governance is lawful is certainly not law, and very much
challenge-able by individuals, even before Bond v United States.
Only the priest class lawyers and their acolytes endeavor to complicate simplicity. Law is simple, it is legality that is complex, and it is
purposely complex to give attorneys the appearance they are as important as...well, brain surgeons.
Not only is the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia Constitution ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, what is also ABUNDANTLY CLEAR is that you are
a clear and present danger to the rights of individuals.