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

To: robertpaulsen
And that definition was that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.

Bullsh*t. In the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall make no law". This does not carry over into the Second that clearly states "shall not be infringed" and makes no distinction as to who may not infringe on said Right. In fact, the Constitution explicitly state that the "Supreme law of the Land" and "laws of any State notwithstanding" are subject to "shall not be infringed". Your mindless maundering notwithstanding, it means exactly what it says.

Your Cruickshank argument has been refuted how many times now? Do we really need to rehash it again?

You don't seem to like people having Rights very much. Are you SURE you are on the correct website? Your logic would go over a lot better on DU.

83 posted on 07/14/2006 9:28:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
"In fact, the Constitution explicitly state that the "Supreme law of the Land"

Gobbledygook.

Article VI states that This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land -- no matter what had existed before -- and the states and the federal government are bound by it.

It does NOT say that EVERYTHING in the constitution applies to the states.

Haven't you ever, in your life, signed a contract that specifies your responsibilities and the other party's responsibilities? Come on.

86 posted on 07/14/2006 9:40:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

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