Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
picric acid - it is a distillation of asperin - which is a distillation of willow bark.
So what differentiates them from "agents of the state", to wit "standing army" or "select militia"? If a "right" only applies to someone operating entirely under the direction of the government, and cannot exercise that "right" outside what the government allows, then in no way is it a "right".
In that light, name a single person who can buy (in their own name) an M4, and store it in their home (as their own).
I wasn't posting to you...
First I don't know. Second, I'm not a single-issue voter, which makes your question irrelevant. Third, the President didn't write the DC law -- Congress did. Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue, not the President.
Leading me to ask, why do you want to know?
We have.
Repeatedly.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
As posted publicly on an active thread with many participants and more viewers, implicitly you were.
It gets kinda distracting and tiresome.
And your intended didn’t even mention “Rudy”.
See? I learn something every day.
So you're saying the Founding Fathers were referring to a bunch of unorganized guys, no leadership, no chain of command, who were highly trained and knew how to shoot.
That's what they meant by a "well regulated Militia". I suppose you have some cites, some links, some quotes, that back you up?
Keeping in mind the "original Intent" based on the language of the time.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Ah! You think that because a right is not protected, that means you don't have it!
Where did you learn that?
“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
~George Mason, 1788
If they have nothing to shoot, then being organized, led and commanded doesn’t do any good.
You can’t achieve a “well-regulated militia” unless the whole people have a right to keep and bear arms.
Name one woman to can own an M4.
Your first instincts regarding that one were correct.
It’s time to break out the troll pics.
edit “to” -> “who”.
>First I don’t know. Second, I’m not a single-issue voter, which makes your question irrelevant.<
Your question is the same as mine, irrelevant.
Past due time...
My friend Rose Vinci owns one, I think. Or was it an M40? I forget.
New Hampshire is less benighted than most other states in that respect, though.
If one looks at this with a vision of Constitutional law and the intent of freedom that the second amendment of the Constitution conveys, the displacement of the second amendment is nothing more than a loss of personal freedom if it is looked at pragmatically.
Thus reversing the law of the second amendment can only be supported by people who have a disdain for freedom on a personal level.
There has to be a title for such people but I just can't think of a word that would be appropriate for such people. ; )
agreed...rendering ad nauseum
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.