Posted on 12/11/2012 10:59:31 AM PST by JohnPierce
To ask the question is to answer it. Of course they do! they're just careful how they say it.
Posner has confused me on more than one occasion as well. But he was dead on the money with this one. :)
There should be bring your gun to work everyday.
Can we do this in MA next? Can we please, huh? Can we?
The only difference is the later group tend to have much more education, and can do you much more financial harm, than the former.
This preamble in no way limits the right to keep and bear arms to only defense of the state.
Some State constitutions have this same language. Others use language such as "in defense of themselves and the State" (Florida, Texas and others) which explicitely spells out collective and individual defense, but hunting isn't mentioned. (Are we to conclude that there is no right to hunt?) But leave it to gun grabbers (and others) to exploit silence. This is fallacious reasoning.
Fair enough; I’m in favor of the 2nd Amendment for all the foregoing reasons.
I don’t like the judge’s limited focus on 1:1 threats. While perhaps true, that’s too narrow a basis for a permanent and wide justification. IMHO.
Kel-tec .380
Amex card
BTTT
I’m more of an XD guy myself. But a tragic canoe accident, yada yada....
I already do. You only have to get mugged once here in Chicago when you finally decide its better to break the law and keep yourself safe than to obey it and wind up dead.
I’m an HnK bigot myself, btw I had a canoe accident too. We’re we on the same river? (Chicago River that is. So murky and green they’ll never be found!)
Bookmark.
well duh
Individual rights do not just apply at home.
I think most second graders should already know this
It will take several court instructions to the state of Illinois and Chicago as they are populated in government by progressive mental defectives. You’ve got to talk and write slowly, using simple short words and sentences, for these people to understand.
The last comma is not in the original writing. Be that as it may, the first clause does not limit the second clause:
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”
[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”
[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”
[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”
[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”
These are our dreaded days IMO.
Thanks to the Supreme court that protected a piece of the constitution for a change.
Good catch. I certainly didn’t think much of “handgun
in one hand and phone in the other” that was in Heller.
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.