Well, of course! Why should "the People" means the People in the First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth and Second Amendment!
Only idiotic ACLU jackwits and other Leftists think "the People" means the National Guard.
Posted on 12/17/2004 4:36:19 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
I think they're trying to say - the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yup, Last paragraph says all you need to know.
About time someone posted it.
Perhaps what's needed is a constitutional amendment that extends the definition of treason to include the actions of those who would, other than in a few specific cases, prevent citizens from keeping and bearing arms (exceptional cases would include, e.g. as a specific part of the punishment for a sufficiently-major crime, or temporarily as a consequence of being imprisoned, etc.)
Well, of course! Why should "the People" means the People in the First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth and Second Amendment!
Only idiotic ACLU jackwits and other Leftists think "the People" means the National Guard.
The left has a creative way of intergreting the constitution; even though the language has been carefully crafted to leave nothing open to interpretation. I guess the forfathers didn't count on future generations twisting the English language. (i.e. "I did not have sex with that woman...It depends on how you define 'sex'.")
That's an excellent idea!!! Wish I'd thought of it.
I'm curious, why the name 'supercat'?
Bookmarked for when I have a few free hours.
/john
Do we really need lawyers to tell us what we can read for ourselves in the Constitution?
I don't think we should get caught up in this "either or" type argument. {Collective vs. Individual}.I believe the founding fathers claim both. How is the individual to resist tyranny unless he works together with his fellow citizen?
NRA & 2nd Amendment PING! PING! PING!
Now here they are using the three comma version, I wish
they would make up their mind, one, two, or three.
Not that it matters to me, I understand the framers perfectly, as they intended a citizen should.
Now as to "shall not be infringed", they do not address
that here except perhaps....
"...Our analysis is limited to determining whether the Amendment secures an individual, collective, or quasi-collective right. We do not consider the substance of that right, including its contours or the nature or type of governmental interests that would justify restrictions on its exercise, and nothing in this memorandum is intended to address or call into question the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of any particular limitations on owning, carrying, or using firearms. ..."
The right is reserved for, but not restricted to the individual. I don't think anyone here would dispute need for guns by our military or police agencies.
"Our analysis is limited to determining whether the Amendment secures an individual, collective, or quasi-collective right. We do not consider the substance of that right, including its contours or the nature or type of governmental interests that would justify restrictions on its exercise, and nothing in this memorandum is intended to address or call into question the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of any particular limitations on owning, carrying, or using firearms."
The analysis of the last four words - shall not be infringed - are conspicuous by their absence. The last four words have not been addressed by any court over the last 100 years, including the excellent analysis done in the 5th Circuit Emerson case. These last words are the most powerful in the entire Bill of Rights; they suppose (and impose) the heavy burden of proof upon the government to show cause why anyone's RKBA should be restricted.
Who's the poor sap they're gonna send to take mine?
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.