Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
United States Department of Justice - Office of Legal Counsel ^ | August 24, 2004 | DOJ

Posted on 12/17/2004 4:36:19 PM PST by TERMINATTOR

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last
To: superskunk
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.

Only individuals have rights. Governments, which include the military and police divisions thereof, have powers. In some times and some places, police did not have the power to be armed with firearms. In Great Britain for instance, until they started disarming the people, the "Bobbies" rarely went armed, although supervisors could bring arms to a scene if necessary. I'd at least say that the police should have to power to have any arms denied to any law abiding citizen. Of course since "shall not be infringed" says that citizens have the right to have any kind of arms, that need not a be any great restriction.

21 posted on 12/17/2004 5:30:13 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Don't jinx yourself, dude. They might send Janet Reno.

Mental note: Buy silver bullets.


22 posted on 12/17/2004 5:30:18 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I understand the distinction. That's why I was careful to use the word 'need' and not 'right', thought 'power' would have been more accurate.


23 posted on 12/17/2004 5:32:34 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
The analysis of the last four words - shall not be infringed - are conspicuous by their absence

You gotta admit, it would have been somewhat awkward to have the Justice department acknowledging "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" at the same time the President was saying he would sign a bill extending the most significant federal infringement since the 1930s (other than the 1986 FOPA's last minute ban on newly manufactured machine guns for civilians perhaps)

24 posted on 12/17/2004 5:34:35 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Bump for a more leisurely read


25 posted on 12/17/2004 5:35:38 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

True. Bush should realize that we put him back in office and that we value freedom over security. (or the illusion of security)


26 posted on 12/17/2004 5:37:39 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Thanks. These guys get paid big bucks by the hour to do just this type of language. Did you ever notice how the word verbage sounds like garbage. It think it means the same, too.


27 posted on 12/17/2004 5:37:44 PM PST by wizr (Freedom ain't free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wizr
Their biggest fear is that we push an amendment through requiring all laws to be written in plain, simple, indisputable English. That would break up the legal aristocracy.
28 posted on 12/17/2004 5:43:16 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: labette
"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."

They do, it's a false distinction.

Assuring the individual right assured the militia too. Clever of Madison.

29 posted on 12/17/2004 5:44:46 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: superskunk
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'.")

Actually, Clinton's parsing was not entirely unreasonable since the term 'to have sex with someone' can have different meanings, and the distinction may be important. For example, if a woman were found to be pregnant, the issue of whether or not she'd had "oral sex" with particular people would not be particularly relevant in ascertaining paternity. Indeed, biblically it would seem that if a woman's hymen was intact on her wedding night her virginity was to be regarded as beyond reproach; that would suggest that a woman who engaged only in 'oral sex' could be regarded as a virgin by such standards (given that a major reason for marrying a virgin was to be sure that one's wife wasn't carrying someone else's child, this again would make sense).

I by no means wish to condone extra-marital relations of such types--merely to point out that Clinton's parsing was not unreasonable. If people meant to ask whether he'd had anything that might be considered 'sexual relations', that's what they should have asked.

30 posted on 12/17/2004 5:46:39 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: superskunk
Their biggest fear is that we push an amendment through requiring all laws to be written in plain, simple, indisputable English. That would break up the legal aristocracy.

How about an amendment requiring that all court cases be supportable without reference to case law? Although it is right and proper that case law should be used in cases where reasonable judges might produce differing opinions, case law should not be used to justify any decision which would not be justifiable in its absense.

31 posted on 12/17/2004 5:48:13 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: superskunk

Sometimes I cram too much thought into too few words, and vice versa. You and I have the right to bear our personal firearms. When all other efforts have failed, we the collective also have the right to restore this bill of rights. I don't think "police" have anything to do with the second ammendment. Just opinion.


32 posted on 12/17/2004 5:49:28 PM PST by labette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
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.

They ARE the most powerful and they DENY the government
the ability to show cause why anyone's RKBA should be restricted.


2 entries found for infringed.
in·fringe    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es 
v. tr.
To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 
Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate. 

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin nfringere, to destroy  : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in·fringer n. 

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 


Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another ; 

33 posted on 12/17/2004 5:51:57 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I see your point and I could accept Clinton's parsing of language if it wasn't so obviously self serving.

FYI: In the biblical context (or at least in context of the culture of that time) a virgin was simply an unmarried woman. Having not 'known' a man was just assumed.


34 posted on 12/17/2004 5:52:24 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: labette

I don't think "police" have anything to do with the second ammendment. Just opinion.


I agree. Establishment of police agencies is a power that falls to congress or subordinate governments in accordance with the constitution. However, our laws do give them the authority to carry weapons as a function of their job and I think that it's both constitutionally acceptable and a practical necessity.


35 posted on 12/17/2004 5:57:58 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: supercat

case law should not be used to justify any decision which would not be justifiable in its absense.


I think that's how judges are actually supposed to make their rulings. Not entirely sure, but I think so.


36 posted on 12/17/2004 6:00:31 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Good stuff, but awfully pedantic. </pedantry>


Something a little less pedantic, just for a break.

<pedantry> Please resume...

37 posted on 12/17/2004 6:01:56 PM PST by Ryan Spock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock

Thank you.


38 posted on 12/17/2004 6:04:31 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: superskunk

Hey. You never did tell me why you go by 'supercat'.


39 posted on 12/17/2004 6:06:08 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Hey. You never did tell me why you go by 'supercat'.


Obviously, I meant that for supercat.


40 posted on 12/17/2004 6:08:02 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson