Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Oh. The right to self defense with a weapon is a state issue. I support it.
Correct. But that's what it's referring to.
I wonder how you know that with such conviction given that the Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of government and and a total abhorrence for a standing army (i.e. a state militia is just another tool to extend governmental power especially since its ultimate leadership comes from DC)????
Liar.
The Second Amendment at no point refers to any descriptor identifying what militia is being discussed in the preamble.
Further, and more important, even Liberal legal scholars, Lawrence Tribe chief among them, have conceded that when the document was drafted, the militia was everyone who was capable of bearing arms and were expected to report with their own weapons.
The same scholars point out that any other interpretation of the word "people" in the second amendment is impossible given the basic precepts of constitutional interpretation. (you can't or won't understand them, so I'm not going to bother explaining them to you)
Get off your militia kick, and just admit you don't like anyone owning guns unless your Federal Goverment gives them permission to do so.
I have said it before, you are either a moron or a shill for big government, anti-individual rights groups.
He isn't interested in learning why he is wrong, merely interested in attempting to push the VPC/collective rights, anti-individual rights, big government Socialism which he worships.
He is a useless piece of flesh, masquerading as a human being.
Ah, the crux of the problem. You seem to have a different copy of the Bill Of Rights than everyone else here. Our copy does not say "well regulated state Militia", it says "well regulated Militia" and then goes on to indicate how that's something good for a State, which does not in any way indicate that the State is the topmost controlling authority of the Militia being referred to.
Correct. But that's what it's referring to.
No it isn't you retard.
"and my neighbors and I are quite capable of being "well regulated"
Nice try.
You truly are a jackass.
You don't even understand the basic premises of our system of government.
Where does the State Defense Force (State Guard) fit in? About half the states have one.
Why not? They're a militia. Congress has declared them a majority part of "the militia". The Constitution refers to "the militia" with no narrower specification thereof. By what divine revelation do you deem them not worthy to enjoy the 2nd Amendment?
This thread has been totally hijacked. There are those of us who know about the right to keep and bear arms, and how that right has been corrupted. Then there are those who use weasel words and sophistry to attack that very nearly absolute right. I’m glad you’re on our side.
The bottom line is we don’t need approval from any government to defend ourselves; we never have and we never will. And there does not need to be any debate about it. That debate closed around 1776, before any Constitution was conceived.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the man in the article was so abused by the local “authorities.” And if incidents such as the one described in the article continue, I am confident that they will be answered appropriately.
The State Defense Force aka State Guard aka State Militia, which you insist are the only ones enjoying the 2nd Amendment, fit in part (2) because they are not part of the National Guard or other enumerated groups.
Interestingly, it is precisely this part (2) which you firmly allege are not part of “the militia” enjoying the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
Ergo, the only group which you contend enjoy the 2nd Amendment are ipso facto a subset of a group which does not enjoy the 2nd Amendment.
You lose by your own argument.
Those would be organized state militia. It still doesn't preclude the unorganized militia that still exists in EVERY state for defense of state or country. Incidentally the 2nd makes no reference to just organized and addresses both classes defined as militia. The definitions haven't been changed and still apply.
IArp
stinkupthethreadfest began without me =0(
According to the Miller court, the second amendment protects weapons which are "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense". (BTW, the M-16 and the M-4 use a .223)
The particular weapons would be decided by each state.
I was a minute late but we are on the same page.
See post 56, commas and all.
Indeed it has. If you will review posting history, you will see that any time RP joins a thread discussing the 2ndA, the thread is immediatly derailed and becomes a shouting match between him profusely spouting a view which is almost universally deemed absurd (even by "collective right" proponents), and a whole lotta people pointing out numerous flaws in the argument, which he derides or ignores. This goes on until his arguments are thoroughly skewered, at which points he seems to declare success and leaves to derail another thread.
I have repeatedly tried to draw this problem to the attention of Moderators, who have apparently done nothing.
By your reasoning the national defense would be answered with electric tanks from Kalifornia. If they so chose
Rediculous!
No, we agree. The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional.
The protection of that right by the second amendment, however, is limited to "the people". Strange that this so-called expert on English grammar and usage never did define who "the people" were.
Does it mean every person? What do you think?
Back on topic bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.