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

To: drew
I thought it was a good point but wonder what some counter arguments are?

All the Bill of Rights pertain to INDIVIDUAL rights. That is why they are there in the first place. The First Amendment does not only pertain to well-regulated newspaper publishers.

In a way, I wish the USSC would just take a position on this and settle it once and for all.

Although, if the USSC declares it a "collective" right and not an "individual" right, I'm still not giving up my guns. Free men may keep guns regardless of what some black-robed judges say.

14 posted on 05/15/2003 3:42:40 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Drew68
"A well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Only by the most tortured of definitions, and taking these simple words out of the context of the time in which they were written, could one conclude that they referred to a "national guard" or other "army" of the state.

To do so means that the Founding Fathers went to the trouble of writing a special amendment that would insure that the right of an army to bear arms shall not be infringed.

To paraphrase Gallagher, "Were they that f***ing stupid?"

25 posted on 05/15/2003 3:58:51 PM PDT by Dratlatl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | 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