Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan
http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
o The right to K&B arms is personal
o It is for the purpose of protecting my self and my family from any threat
o The right can not be infringed in any way - and that right is guaranteed by the Constitution and natural law
o I may K&B any weapon that would normally be issued individually to a contemporary soldier
o I will exercise my right - dispite what the current law might say, because my right is not granted by law, it is unalienable - indeed, it is God-given.
If the 2nd is incorporated into this decision, what will be the instant effect on cities like Morton Grove, IL? That was the first city that got national attention, to ban guns.
Happy 10th, may you post in interesting times. ;)
And just WHAT is wrong with goat sacrifices?
the supremes sound like they wanna wide open interpretation or none at all... or just playin devils advocate to see how ‘insane’ he really is and what hes willing to push today ???
Anybody paying attention to what President Bush actually SAID knew he would sign the CFR bill. Paraphrasing his position, that dated back to at least three months prior to his 2000 election: “I prefer that there be no limits on contributions, but that it be demanded that all contributions be displayed on public web site within 48 hours, as I have done. However, I’ll sign any bill about CFR that comes out of the Congress.”
This is a very different situation. Generally, Pres.Bush has done what he said he would do before he was elected - including nominees to the Federal bench, and including, alas, illegal immigration.
Would you support literacy tests for voting?
Depends on who owns the goat.
The absence of a standing army was intended to be a check on the power of the federal government, which would have no power to use armed force against the residents of a state, unless it had the agreement and cooperation of the state's executive
You do NOT have a right to fly a plane.
You do have a right to keep and bear arms.
See the difference? Permits don’t express rights; they demonstrate a privledge. “Nut jobs,” and I presume you mean those already identified as such, would already be banned from even possessing arms.
The state of Illinois makes that clear as well - that driving is a privilege and not a right... (Well at least back in 1990 it was that way — I had a friend who got busted at 17 when she used a DL to try to get into a bar when she was visiting a college, and she had her license suspended immediately for a year before she ever even went to court - no proof she had really done the crime she was charged with and she lost her license for a year anyway... It was her own fault for using a fraudulent ID, but it astounded me that they could suspend her license before she was even “convicted” of any wrongdoing...)
************************************************************
The thing about rights and freedom — in order to have them, and protect them for EVERYONE we must be willing to live with some risk...
As for gun laws — the only ones who follow those laws are the law-abiding citizens who are the responsible ones. Criminals will always have guns or other weapons if they really desire them... No law will prevent that.
You can’t make things “perfect” in human society. That is the delusion the gun grabbers/socialists/communists live under...
I just can’t see that happening.
Further, I don’t see Justice Thomas merely affirming someone else’s opinion on this issue. RKBA is a hot-button issue with Justice Thomas. I would predict that Justice Thomas writes an opinion that strongly affirms the individual right, strikes down the DC gun ban and gives the most expansive and historically instructive opinion on RKBA.
So even if everyone agrees with the individual rights position, you’d see a 8-1-0.
As it is, I simply cannot foresee any way that Ginsberg and Souter see an individual right. I predict something like 5-1-3 or 4-2-3, if someone else (eg, Alito or Scalia) signs on with Thomas on a more constructionist opinion.
I understand and respect what your trying too say. Yet as in a Drivers license......not all states require a test every few years ......TX does not. I took a test to get my license at age 16 . I am now 54. Haven’t had a test since for driving. All I am required to do is get a new card issued at cost every 4 to 5 years (I forget time line).....that is pure revenue vs safety.
As well (trying to not be a smart ass or insulting ) my right to drive is not in the bill of rights......:o)
I would suggest that the firearms “dealer” be required to train / familiarize the shooter if it is their first firearm AND they have neither military or other civilian equivalent use of force and firearms training. A lack of a numbered certificate or other proof of basic firearms “training” would open the individual owner, not the manufacturer or retailer , to litigation of a civil vs legal sort if an accident would occur. Of course such would not preclude criminal negligence by the owner / shooter if such a skill was abused.
Just my opinion of course......
Stay safe !
>I think the permit system is a reasonable way to make sure the nut jobs don’t end up with guns.the nut jobs
Do you object to car or pilot licenses?<
Dave, How many illegal aliens are stopped everyday driving without a license? The need to acquire a permit is only relevant to someone wishing to remain legal. Criminals and the nut jobs do not care about legalities.
The permit system is a publically acceptable way of maintaining control power over the citizen/subjects!
That in itself would be killer to the Brady bunch, because the court would be stating the central point that the 2A pertains to an individual right not limited to soldiering.
As an aside, has anyone noted that all comments made by Breyer/Stevens were in context of original intent/contemporaneous construction? Do people realize just how huge this is?
That's like agreeing to play a football game entirely on one side of the field.
Without conservative "input" Bush would have Harriet Miers on the bench, not Samuel Alito.
With no experience as a judge, I think it's anyone's guess how Miers would rule on this case. Bush's choice could have easily turned a possible 5-4 victory into a 4-5 loss.
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.