1 posted on
03/16/2008 11:12:30 PM PDT by
neverdem
To: neverdem
2 posted on
03/16/2008 11:51:05 PM PDT by
sageb1
(This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
To: neverdem
Very nice:"Tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an unarmed people." This simple observation captures the essential nature of the Second Amendment.
To: neverdem
Very nice:"Tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an unarmed people." This simple observation captures the essential nature of the Second Amendment.
To: neverdem
Not as slanted as I expected from the NYT. I think I’ll try to browse some of the briefs later today.
6 posted on
03/17/2008 1:08:50 AM PDT by
de meanr
(No Amnesty)
To: All
So if, God help us, the supremes do go with a “militia” view of the 2nd. What is to stop individuals from forming private “militias” for the purpose of buying fire-arms? Kind of like the way Dallas county (Texas) liqueur establishments have “clubs” you join to get around the dry county laws.
What is the standard for a militia? Is it a state by state sort of affair and how loose is the interpretation of a militia?
I’m truly interested to here what other Freepers think on the militia angle. If they are going to play semantics with words then I would recommend individuals doing the same and joining their state “militias”.
To: neverdem
Strict scrutiny, the most protective standard, accorded to rights the court deems fundamental, almost always dooms to failure an effort at government regulation. The briefs on the individual-rights side of this case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, argue for applying strict scrutiny, and it is Mr. Clements refusal to embrace that standard that has caused such consternation.
The governments brief argues for judicial review that would be heightened but not strict, employing a sliding scale that balances the impact that any restriction might have on the protected conduct of private gun ownership against the strength of the governments interest in enforcement of the restriction. The District of Columbias law may well fail such scrutiny, the brief observes.
We already have such a "sliding scale" on most all of the other Rights, that does not make them -- or the USSC -- correct in its interpretation.
- 1st Amend.: Speech -- cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre absent an actual fire.
- Religion: Snake and Peyoté handlers prohibited.
- Press: No free access to broadcast of print media except on allowance and restrictions of the governments agent.
Are those restrictions reasonable -- yes. Are they Constitutional -- no. That is also why the Founders gave us a Republic instead of a mob-rule Democracy.
The twisting that various legislative bodies have taken WRT the Second violates the plain language ... shall not be infringed. To countenance that a man may not provide for his own protection and defense, or to restrict his method due to erroneous assumptions of staré decisis cases is unconstitutional, and should be struck down fully. To do otherwise allows that the criminals can usurp the rights of the law-abiding, and wastes time and treasure from our government.
19 posted on
03/17/2008 11:14:03 AM PDT by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson