That's fun, but it takes a lot of time. I just say, "Excuse me a minute,
I'll be right back." Then I put down the phone and read a book or something.
Five minutes later I just hang up the phone.
I was having fun with the young ladies from the NRA the other night, though.
I just couldn't say no in the end. d8-)
The Constitution of the United States of America contains in the first
TEN amendments FOUR references to "PEOPLE". Why is it that the second
reference is interpreted by the anti gun fanatics to mean the GOVERNMENT
and the other THREE references to mean them?
A clear and concise answer please, no prevarications....
Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is
generating more interest then anything else going on in this newsgroup right
now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your
own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.
William Noble wrote:
Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated militia".
I guess its only a matter of time before someone says "Because the good lord
made it so", and we are
then allowed to let this thread die...
'alf a mo'. I just did say it. Can we stop now?
Eh, the courts have NOT consistently held that it's an individual right.
Just the opposite, in fact.
However, the issue is up for grabs again. Within this decade two Circuit
Courts of Appeals have reached opposite conclusions on this issue, one that
supports the individual right (Fifth Circuit, United States v. Emerson, 270
F.3d 203) and one that denies it (Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F.3d 1052). This conflict puts pressure on the Supreme Court to finally
decide the issue, but don't count your chickens. It may be very difficult to
find a test case.
FWIW, the issue has been brewing in the highest reaches of legal theorizing
since the publication, in the Yale Law Review, of Sanford Levinson's
article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" (1989). The article is widely
available online for anyone who's interested.
Laurence Tribe (the most famous liberal legal scholar) caused a furor a few
years by swinging, to a large degree, to the individual-rights position. It
is an extremely hot issue in legal scholarship today, part of a broader
turmoil of re-thinking various rights issues.
However, keep in mind that the 5th, while it has fewer cases reviewed by the
USSC, had 100% of them overturned in a recent year. I think it was five
cases in one year.
There's no way anyone can anticipate how this one would come out. I'd put my
money on the individual-right interpretation prevailing, but I wouldn't bet
Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And read
my first post above again.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
The Bill of Rights:
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that. The right of the people to
bear arms flows from the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There is
a hierarchy here in the flow and ordering of the statements concerning
how and why the rights are bestowed by the constitution.
What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.