Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
67. Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context --
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:46 PM
Oct 2015
In addition the Justices held that the Second Amendment restricts only the powers of the national government, and that it does not restrict private citizens from denying other citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right in the Bill of Rights. The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." Their ruling was that citizens must look to "municipal legislation" when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank


Emphasis mine.

Of course, the case you're citing is where racists, as private citizens acting under their own power, attempted to deny blacks their 2A rights. The majority opinion you cite states quite plainly that the majority believes the 2A prohibits only the government from infringing on the RKBA but citizens can infringe upon citizens.

It's hard to see how you think this opinion bolsters your contention about gun control when it declares Congress cannot infringe. I'm curious to know why you make common cause with a USSC decision that paved the way for --

African Americans in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments dominated by white Democratic legislatures; neither the legislatures, law enforcement or the courts worked to protect freedmen.[9] As Democrats regained power in the late 1870s, they struggled to suppress black voting through intimidation and fraud at the polls. Paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts acted on behalf of the Democrats to suppress black voting. From 1890 to 1908, 10 of the 11 former Confederate states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments,[10] with provisions for poll taxes,[11] residency requirements, literacy tests,[11] and grandfather clauses that effectively disfranchised most black voters and many poor white people. The disfranchisement also meant that black people could not serve on juries or hold any political office, which were restricted to voters; those who could not vote were excluded from the political system.

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.


A legacy every gun grabber can be proud of.



So, you thinking about starting a private paramilitary group to deny people their 2A rights? Because obviously Congress can't.
They don't. They are a fig leaf. Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #1
"controlling the use and possession of other guns" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #3
It's worked effectively elsewhere. Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #5
Except when it hasn't. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #6
Which isn't once or twice every damm day... ananda Oct 2015 #9
On the contrary, every time there is a spree killer numerous laws have failed. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #10
This is a non sequitur. ananda Oct 2015 #87
"Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency of gun violence." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #88
A couple points.... Adrahil Oct 2015 #4
I'm all for regulating guns based on the amount of hot lead that comes out of the barrel per second. backscatter712 Oct 2015 #68
.. pipoman Oct 2015 #84
There is an AR-15 type gun manufactured in which the Snobblevitch Oct 2015 #97
Kids who accidentally kill other kids with guns are not mentally ill...their Parents are. Not every kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #45
They don't. This is obvious. Look around. nt bemildred Oct 2015 #2
Stopping disturbed persons isn't their main intent, anyway. Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #7
As someone with a "mental illness" I take powerful meds for, I find your post highly offensive. hunter Oct 2015 #8
First, if you choose to be offended that is your choice. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #12
It distracts from the actual issue -- gun fetishism in the U.S.A.. hunter Oct 2015 #20
Controllers are the fetishists. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #21
Well... Chan790 Oct 2015 #23
Because self-defense is a right and the misuse and abuse by others does not abrogate those rights. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #26
Who is trying to ban self defense? n/t kcr Oct 2015 #31
Who is trying to own a nuclear bomb? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #37
Aww. And you said, "go for it" kcr Oct 2015 #38
I do not concede. Plenty of Controllers demand people be disarmed up to and including Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #39
You do not understand what straw man means kcr Oct 2015 #40
No one claims private nuclear bombs are a practical means of self-defense. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #41
Except I wasn't claiming anyone was making that argument kcr Oct 2015 #42
Okay. So let's play with your stupid analogy, which is stupid. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #43
It's not stupid kcr Oct 2015 #44
"Your contention that no one should abrogate your decision" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #47
I'm sorry, but it does. kcr Oct 2015 #48
I'm sorry but you can't just make stuff up. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #50
I forget. What is the well-regulated militia that all you gun folks belong to? HERVEPA Oct 2015 #53
Title 10 USC Section 311. Which Supreme Court do you belong to? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #54
About Title 10 (I'll take what was obviuosly meant in The Constitution) HERVEPA Oct 2015 #60
I see you're unfamiliar with Section 311 Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #61
I read it, Ms. Pomposity. I'll still take the obvious meaning of the Constitution (nt) HERVEPA Oct 2015 #63
The obvious meaning of the constitution that since the militia supplies its own arms Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #64
Pick and choose whatever BS you'd like. I'm done with your crap. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #66
Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context -- Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #67
So both the President and the Demcratic party platform got it wrong hack89 Oct 2015 #73
yup HERVEPA Oct 2015 #75
I think I will go with the guy who taught constitutional law. Nt hack89 Oct 2015 #76
Yeh, you go with the dead kids. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #78
So what you're saying is, by your own rules, if you don't support reinstating Prohibition Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #80
Apples and unicorns HERVEPA Oct 2015 #82
No. No, it's not. You can try to pretend the analogy is not apt but there is no argument you Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #83
Enjoy your gun stuff for the next week. I'm off dancing in a gun-free zone with non-gunners. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #94
jury results restorefreedom Oct 2015 #92
Thanks for posting. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #93
no problem. restorefreedom Oct 2015 #95
"Controllers are the fetishists." Gidney N Cloyd Oct 2015 #24
The Controllers hit bottom years ago when they started cheering violence against gun owners Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #27
My mistake. _Now_ it's hit bottom. Gidney N Cloyd Oct 2015 #28
Is it the fact some Controllers have violent ideations or my temerity in pointing out the fact? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #36
I like to pretend everyone is ignoring the criminals too LanternWaste Oct 2015 #58
Yeah? beevul Oct 2015 #70
Congratulations, you're a sucker for the old NRA right-wing manipulation. backscatter712 Oct 2015 #11
FACT: I never said most mentally ill people are violent Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #13
Mental health needs to get more attention but inwiththenew Oct 2015 #14
I don't think we need "all mental health records" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #15
According to real research: backscatter712 Oct 2015 #16
"you'd cut the overall violence rate by about 4%." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #17
Do what Australia did. n/t backscatter712 Oct 2015 #18
Yeah, about that often cited but seldom scrutinzed talking point -- Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #19
Oh, it's not just the "spree killers." hunter Oct 2015 #22
How does misuse and abuse by one person abrogate the rights of another? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #25
I have the right to defend myself against pests in my house. kcr Oct 2015 #32
Go for it. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #33
That's twisting the research, IMHO Nevernose Oct 2015 #71
It indeed is a "top-down thing," branford Oct 2015 #74
Look we can't keep guns out of hands that should upaloopa Oct 2015 #29
You can no more keep guns from everyone than you can keep drugs from everyone. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #35
the Columbine kids got their guns because no backround checks- end straw purchases! bettyellen Oct 2015 #30
There are laws against straw purchases and I support those laws. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #34
but they happen more often when they can get away with no paperwork- she would not have done it bettyellen Oct 2015 #49
So, returning to the OP. How would UBCs matter unless the mentally ill were ID'ed and Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #51
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need more mental health services- and bettyellen Oct 2015 #52
Stricter how? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #55
You can look a million places for good proposals on gun regulations- why pretend you need me? bettyellen Oct 2015 #56
I've seen lots of proposals undet the guise of "common sense" that would have no bearing while Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #59
And the girlfriend who did the buying and straw purchases Lee-Lee Oct 2015 #46
That is such an important point mainstreetonce Oct 2015 #62
Many also say most mentally healthy people are not violent. LanternWaste Oct 2015 #57
For policy it's not a question of if mentally ill are or aren't violent HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #69
Private sales DustyJoe Oct 2015 #65
The majority of firearm deaths (60%) are suicides madville Oct 2015 #72
Japan, which recognizes no RKBA, has a suicide rate that dwarfs our own. People need help Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #77
The "mentally ill" are not more violent than the rest of the population Recursion Oct 2015 #79
The violent ones are. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #81
If only any other country in the world had to deal with mental illness ... LannyDeVaney Oct 2015 #85
Mass killings by the dangerously mentally ill don't just happen in America, i.e. Andreas Lubitz Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #86
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Oct 2015 #89
No u! Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Oct 2015 #96
Yet everything you define as objectionable for the mentally ill Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Oct 2015 #99
Never met a republican yet that wasn't mentally ill. B Calm Oct 2015 #91
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If we don't focus on the ...»Reply #67