[tarawa]

ping

[PatrioticAmerican]

Just anohter idiot who knows nothing of history our this country's foundations. Another public school idiot.

[Joe Brower]

[Billthedrill]

The author seems to think that labeling a point of view the NRA's somehow invalidates it. But the author is absolutely correct in his parsing of the Second Amendment: The amendment means that because a free state needs a militia, the right to guns can't be infringed. but neatly leaves out whose right is referred to in his synopsis. The framers did not.

I would agree with his suggestion Perhaps we should leave the Second Amendment alone and deal as best we can with an apparently inviolable right of the physically fit of military age to have guns. What I can't understand is why the author doesn't seem to buy into his own conclusion.

[Walkin Man]

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of this does the gun-grabbing leftist prof not understand?

[Blue Screen of Death]

One would think that people who believe that President Bush is so morally corrupt that he knew about the 9/11 attack and kept quiet so his friends could make money on the deal, would be the first to want to arm themselvs as protection against the this government.

Go figure. The same people who believe that this administration is horrible, corrupt and willing to kill their own citizens for a few bucks on puts and calls on the stock market are the ones that see no need to keep and bare arms.

[45Auto]

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789.

[boris]

"It says, '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.'"

No, it does not. The Second Amendment contains only a single comma.

--Boris

[45Auto]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

--Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888).

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

--Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

--Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

[45Auto]

Prof Oldenquist is an idiot. I would have hated to have had to take a philosophy course from the old dingbat. The historical essays and discourse involveing the writing and ratification of the Constitution leave NO DOUBT what the 2nd means and what the Founders had in mind. Even a near illiterate like Prof Oldenquist should be able to glean the simple meaning from the above quotes. Duh!

[45Auto]

Publications by the learned dingbat:

Andrew OLDENQUIST __________

Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, Ohio State University, 350 University Hall, 230 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Oldenquist, A. 1978. Evolution and ethics. Personalist 59: 58—69. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

Oldenquist, A. 1980. The possibility of selfishness. American Philosophical Quarterly 17: 25—33. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

Oldenquist, A. 1990. The origins of morality: An essay in philosophical anthropology. Social Philosophy and Policy 8: 121—140. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

This guy's specialty is evolutionary ethics, or as some might put it, "situational morality". Typical leftist nonsense used to rationalize any type of assinine behavior.

[coloradan]

Attorney General John Ashcroft is trying, most likely in vain, to persuade the Supreme Court to interpret the Second Amendment as the National Rifle Association interprets it.

This sentence - #1 in the article body, is a lie. Olson has asked the Supreme Court to reject hearing any Second Amendment cases, specifically Emerson's and Haney's, so that they will not offer any interpretation of it.

[betty boop]

BTTT!

[robertpaulsen]

"For example, if the Constitution said, "A federal budget, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Congress to levy taxes shall not be infringed," this wouldn't mean Congress is guaranteed a right to levy taxes to gamble with or for other purposes unrelated to funding a federal budget."

If this language is so clear and unambiguous, why didn't congress use it when they wrote the 16th amendment?

[GovernmentShrinker]

It's high time we launched a movement to amend the 2nd Amendment, removing the first half, which is not consistent with the recorded intent of those who drafted and ratified it, and which causes no end of trouble for those of us who care about this important Consitutional right.

The pesky preamble is what's known in legalese as "dicta", and like the side ramblings in court opinions, is distinct from the "holding", which is the actual statement of law. However, since the destruction of our educational system, such concepts are way over the heads of average citizens, and thus the language urgently needs to be simplified.

[RichT]

I e-mailed Oldenquist last night and provided a few quotes from the founding fathers that might help him reconsider what the Founders felt about firearms. The idiot responded back and told me to read Article 1 Section 8 50 times. Obviously this legend in his own mind feels that us mere plebians can not understand something so complex as the Constitution.

[Eagle Eye]

Glad to know that this guy has got it right when everyone else has got it wrong.

[AAABEST]

What the Framers apparently meant is that citizens should bring their own guns when called up, relieving the government of supplying them..

Yeah OK, the reason for why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment was so that the governement could save money. Nice try dumbs**t.

[J Jay]

Well, The Second Amendment was written in the English language with the words, sentence structure, and punctuation arranged in a precise manner.

What does this arrangement really mean???

Take a look at The Unabridged Second Amendment at the link.

(The Unabridged Second)