Posted on 06/17/2008 12:52:10 PM PDT by neverdem
The only people who have a problem with the wording of the 2A are the same idiots who somehow find the right to an abortion in the constitution.
They can’t see one and they just make up the other.
Remember “Algore” said it was a living breathing document, funny I thought it was encased in argon or some other type of inert gas...
I read the suit was brought by a Police Officer, who wanted to keep a gun in his home.
Think of the new definitions of the words "gay" and "marriage"
I have hosted it Here for anyone who would like to read it.
Isn’t it pretty clear where 8 of the justices stand (at least to an approximate degree), and that those 8 are split 4-4 on whether the right to bear arms belongs to the people or just to the state militia?
So it rests with Kennedy, and given the recent past, that’s cause for some worry.
I remain hopeful, the 2nd Amend. will be construed as an individual right. If it is so construed, however, I’ll wager that the “shall not be infringed” part will be given a loose meaning, as in “not OVERLY infringed” or “not TOTALLY infringed”.
bookmark for later
The suit was brought by a security officer charged with protecting the same hypocrite public officials who say he can’t protect himself at home.
It never did. Infringing on an American Citizen's Second Amendment right(s) due to a prior conviction is only a recent trend. And it did not stem from any part of the constitution. It came into being in the late sixties or early seventies as I recall. Something like that.
I agree completely. There's an awful lot of optimistic tea-reading going on, optimistic if you car about retaining your Constitutional rights, that is. This could go very badly.
>>>>>I downloaded and read the briefs that were presented by the attorneys for Heller
And it was reported that the attorney who brought and argued DoJ’s case resigned several weeks ago.
Scooter Libby can never own a gun again (legally) is that right? NO!!
If you do that then who will decide what is 'overly infringed'? State and local governments? The same people who wrote the law now before the court?
There isn’t a “new definition” -
in reality, there is only one definition,
and it has been destroyed.
They didn’t “redefine marriage” - they UNDEFINED it.
IMHO, if a citizen can’t be trusted with a firearm, he shouldn’t be free amongst us.
This part is brilliant:
The Copyright and Patent Clause preamble would arguably possess greater operative force than that of the Second Amendment, as it begins with the infinitive that introduces most powers of Congress. The power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, viewed with the same breadth as the power “[t]o regulate Commerce,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, could stand alone absent the text that follows. In contrast, the Second Amendment’s preamble merely declares a concept. Yet “Congress need not ‘require that each copyrighted work be shown to promote the useful arts.’ ” Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102, 112 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). And this Court does not question whether copyright and patent laws serve the preambular purpose of promoting progress, though some laws might fail such examination. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 (2003).
Decent, law-abiding citizens will always outnumber mentally deranged people, organized street gang members and convicted felons by at least 10 to 1. If everybody were armed, the numbers of these undesirable types will decrease even further.
They say that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. That is not the whole story. Evil can also triumph if good men are restricted to the point where they can do nothing.
Point well taken and a good one at that
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.