Posted on 12/09/2012 4:25:54 PM PST by dontreadthis
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed As simple as these word are, we have been arguing about what they mean for a long time. Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the 2nd Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be honest about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. The issue is further complicated by the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the 2nd Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an archaic artifact. We must first understand that we did not invent the 2nd Amendment; we inherited it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Is that so? Do you believe a relatively peaceful society can function without laws?
one corrupt Judge can set precedent and it becomes law
Can you explain that and provide a few examples?
Mass. courts re-defined the word, marriage. It's now the law in Massa chew sets. Any sex can now legally contract with any sex to have sex. That's what marriage is now in Massa chew sets. Multiple partners and legalized circle jerks next. Coming up next will be no age restrictions followed by marriage between man and beast then marriage between animal-animal, animal-human, human-volvo or even human-roller skates, human-dolphins, humans-teddy bears. What's to prevent it? Absolutely nothing, now that the bench has proven its supremacy over the Constitution and common sense.
Not "one corrupt judge" as you asserted.
Nope, not if you really have to ask, that might set a precedent.
I suspected that would be the case.
That wasn't my assertion. But it makes no difference anyway. One judge is as good as Fifty-one percent of 1,000 judges.
If you want to play the devil's advocate, go ahead, but please choose something that's more relevant and arguable.
So what did you think of my posts 11 and 15? Anything you can agree with or worth commenting on, pro or con?
I apologize, it was itsahoot's assertion.
One judge is as good as Fifty-one percent of 1,000 judges.
Not if the one judge is in the 49 percent.
I agree that the Founding Fathers weren't perfect. They created a document with as much foresight as was possible at the time and under the circumstances.
Alternate valid interpretation:
The Founders were hesitant to have a standing army. They wanted the populace armed instead. They did grudgingly recognize that a country did in fact need a standing army. The 2nd Amendment’s preface acknowledges that a standing army (well regulated) is necessary, and that notwithstanding the people are still recognized as having a right to keep and bear arms. To wit, the presence of a standing army in no way precludes the people being armed.
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.