Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
They were fought for so that others would recognize them.
I just checked that code, and it looks to me to be poorly written.
Just what will happen if the politicians actually DO succeed in banning firearms? Whose side will the military, police, and National Guard be on?
I read it. There is absolutely no legal content therein, just select statistics and biased social policy.
At the time of Miller, yes, short barreled shotguns had been used by the military. Just not that short.
"the Court would have found that Miller had a right to possess it."
Mr. Miller was not arrested for possessing a short barreled shotgun. He was arrested for possessing a short barreled shotgun without a federal tax stamp.
You can argue all you want whether of not this was a suitable militia weapon. The fact is, it lacked a stamp. He violated the federal law that required one on this type of weapon.
“A group of young men started yelling at us, ‘we’re going to kill you’ (and) ‘they’ll never find your bodies,’ “ Palmer said in a March 2003 declaration. “Fortunately, I was able to pull my handgun out of my backpack”
Backpack or backside?
We also don’t have a Naval militia.
Either way it will raise a red-hot issue for Election ‘08.
If we win, our opposition will _freak_.
DC’s petition reads like a chess player hoping his opponent won’t see his very weak position.
If what you’re doing is above board and legal,
you don’t need to wear masks, or cover your badge numbers.
Otherwise, you’re just thugs under the false cover of authority.
Can you elaborate on their plan?
The militia clause should not matter. A militia is not the same as a standing army. Militias are called in the absence of a standing army, or to bolster that army's strength. The whole idea of a militia is that it consists of citizens bringing their own weapons to the fray. If the citizens were not allowed to keep and bear arms, they would never have the opportunity to form a militia.
A liberal running as a Republican is still a liberal.
Nor do we ban everyone from owning a gun. Nor do we ban all guns.
The government may impose a reasonable restriction on any fundamental right provided there's a compelling governmental interest in doing so and provided the law is narrowly tailored. "Gagging everyone" would be considered "over-inclusive".
It's absence would change the meaning.
Unlike other parts of the constitution, the second amendment doesn't say, "... all persons have the right ..." or "... citizens have the right ...". It specifically says, "... 'the people' have the right ...".
So who were "the people"? The preamble explains who they were.
Methinks the court used the “no evidence” line to neutralize the effect of Miller et al not showing up. They knew how important the case was, but couldn’t achieve a fair ruling without the defendant present. Saying
Groan...not again...
You ARE free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The government does not require a license to do so, does not explicitly forbid doing so, and does not tax/regulate/prohibit any tools that facilitate doing so.
If there IS a fire, nobody will question the legality of you shouting "fire".
If yelling "fire" is part of the performance and is understood to be such, no harm will be done.
If there isn't, and harm is done by you doing so, the issue isn't that you violated a restriction on yelling "fire", but instead are responsible/liable for the consequences of your actions.
Lose the tired, inaccurate, ignorant analogy already.
If the supreme law of the land already acknowledges that the people have right to keep and bear arms and it shouldn't be infringed, why do we need the supreme court to re-decide the issue?
It's already decided and chiseled in stone. The supreme law of the land cannot be over-written by a state constitution, or any judge, or any state law or any treaty law or any other law passed by congress that is not in pursuance and is repugnant to the Second Amendment. That's why it's called the supreme law. (Article VI, pra 2.)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Do you need a committee to tell you that white is white and black is black? It's self-evident. And so is the Second Amendment.
Even if the Supreme Coiurt did rule that white was black and black was white, the people are going to ignore the court. They already know what the labels for colors are.
In case anyone here is confused and don't know how to read, put your hand on your ass and say, 'This is my ass.' Now dig a hole and point to it and say, 'That is a hole in the ground.'
Case closed!
Liberals all.. There’s smart asses on this very site saying crap like “take your meds”. How bad is 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.