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.
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.
Bookmarked for when I have a few free hours.
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. ..."
"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?
Bump for a more leisurely read
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.
Something a little less pedantic, just for a break.
<pedantry> Please resume...
To me, this document constitutes the Ashcroft DOJ's most enduring legacy, a gift to the people, a labor of love for the Republic. As long winded as it is, it utterly reaffirms the intent of the Founding Fathers. An item of related interest, Gary Hart (yep, that one, Mr. Monkey Business) apparently also takes the same point of view in his PhD thesis, which has what actually looks like a very good plan for beefing up Homeland Security. In it, the reaffirmation of the duties and responsibilities of all able bodied citizen militia members plays a key role in the plan.
Amendments 1-9 were to secure individual rights. The communist founded ACLU is just hiding behind their legal finger to deny that that one particular right is not an individual right.
A great refutation of the "Unitary" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This school of thought states that the American people can collectively bear arms, but not individuals.
All any idiot (including myself) has to do is learn just a tiny bit of American History and they can easily see that any argument against personal ownership of firearms is about the most retarded thing you could ever hear. And that is a fact jack.