@OmSigDAVID,
Setanta wrote:Conservatives attempt to cherry pick all the time. The most recent, glaring example is the attempt to, again and again, introduce religion into the public sphere, despite the no establishment clause of the first amendment, ratified in 1791.
Government was not created in America to foster nor promote religion.
The Constitution does not authorize the promulgation of religion, nor the repression thereof.
Accordingly, any person who uses government for religious
purposes
DEVIATES from the Constitution, thus becoming a
liberal,
like a fanatical supporter of AA who goes out on a drinking binge.
Setanta wrote:You people also sedulously ignore the first clause of the second amendment,
That is not true, Setanta.
I regcognize the rights of the citizens to organize themselves
into private militia, if so thay choose (tho I, myself, have been too lazy to do so).
"Well regulated militia" must be distinguished from "selected militia"
in that the latter (the fellows described in Article I Section 8
subsections 15 n 16) r obviously government sponsored ("selected militia"),
un-like the militia of the 2nd Amendment, who r private fellows,
the guys in the naborhood -- like a volunteer library.
Remember: there were
NO POLICE in the USA, in the 17OOs,
so everyone was expected to take care of himself,
in defense from animals or street criminals.
Sometimes, thay grouped together to accomplish that purpose.
I 've gotta go now; dinner beckons.
I 'll address the rest of your post later.
OK: I 'M BACK.
Setanta wrote: and the power over the militia granted to Congress in Article I, Section Eight
which clearly gives the Congress the right to regulate Firearms.
No; that is a
non-sequitur, except as to government owned guns
that have been issued to the militiamen for use on-the-job.
Your posted remark fails to take proper cognizance of
the distinction between the selected militia of Article I Section 8,
and the "well regulated" (i.e., private) local militia
which sometimes acted in the absence of
non-existent
police forces (until well into the next century).
Setanta wrote: This principle was upheld in The United States versus Miller, 1939.
That case only stood for the proposition that the Bill of Rights protects civilian possession
of
LETHAL WEAPONS,
not junk; i.e., to qualify for 2nd Amendment protection,
it had to be proven that the instrument in question
cud be of use to a militia in battle, not worthless junk
with that mutilated gunbarrel. The USSC merely
made the point that the
MILLER trial court erred in failing
to take expert testimony on the value, the functionality,
of the defendant's shotgun, in that altered condition.
Indeed, that testimony was available in 1939,
because short shotguns had been used as "trench brooms"
in the First World War, but that information did not
find its way onto the record of the trial court; (no expert).
(In my Constitutional orthodoxy, I
AGREE with the USSC in
MILLER,
that if a weapon has been damaged
to the point that a citizen cannot use it to successfully kill human beings,
then it
LOSES 2nd Amendment protection.
The Bill of Rights does not protect a citizen 's possession of useless trash.
It protects the right to possess
good weapons.
)
During the years n decades since 1939,
many lower courts had screwn up mis-interpretations of the USSC in
MILLER.
In 2008, the USSC cleared up those mis-interpretations
of
MILLER in
D.C. v HELLER 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Setanta wrote: Conservatives frequently whine about the "coddling" of criminals
(despite the principle of innocent until proven guilty),
That is not cherry picking; thay have as much right to their opinions ( n to express their opinions )
as u do qua your own.
Setanta wrote:whining about evidence thrown out because of illegal search and seizure (fourth amendment),
or convictions overturned because of violations of due process (fifth and fourteenth amendments).
I worked for and voted for both
Barry Goldwater n Ronald Reagan, ergo: my conservative credentials.
I agree with finding in favor of defendant for the reasons
that u posted. That is consonant with my Constitutional orthodoxy.
If other people who vote my way in November feel differently,
I can only defer to their freedom of opinion, but that does
NOT
follow from the logic of the Constitution; (it does
NOT say:
"hay, don't coddle criminals").
Setanta wrote:Conservatives cherry pick constitutional provisions all the time.
That is
not cherry picking,
but people can differ in their favorite parts of the Constitution.
David
