Posted on 12/04/2008 5:34:20 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
It's to ensure that if we the people need to band together for common defense, that we have the tools to do so.
Read Elliot's Debates of the First Congress and you won't need to rely on Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to do your thinking for you.
I am sorry I have upset you to the point you resort to name calling, but prefatory clauses may modify the meaning of a sentence.
That is my understanding too. Why does the law then restrict automatic weapons, grenades, etc.?
I know, but it isn’t being upheld. Needs to be more defined than the Heller case and supercede state regs .
Gun laws sure helped for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Suzanna Hupp’s parents at Luby’s in Texas...
That wasn’t clearly understood by me, and probably by anybody that read it.
Explain your whole understanding and interpretation of the Second Amendment. That might paint a clearer picture.
Not. Please cite.
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Not that I think logic will be able to touch your hoplophobic bigotry.
Because the law no longer follows the very document that gives it power over anything. The NFA of '34 is as illegal today as it was then when it was illegitimately passed.
Or all those folks in Mumbi, or the Warsaw Ghetto, etc...
See your own post #193. Goodbye.
Well then tell me how I go into a NY gun store and purchase a gun from them.
-------------------------------------------------------
Second, and much more important, the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights as well) originally restricted only the federal government, not the state governments. There was little need for the Framers to be concerned about the details of the inevitable tradeoffs between individual freedom and public safety because the Constitution left the states free to balance those competing goals in whatever ways they thought fit. Every state was left free by the federal Bill of Rights to establish an official religion, to require a government license in order to publish a newspaper, or to abolish the right of trial by jury. Similarly, the states were left free to regulate the private possession of weapons in whatever way seemed appropriate to them. The Framers could therefore have reasonably expected that new issues, like those raised by technological developments in weaponry, could and would be addressed by the state governments as they arose.
My whole point is that my opinion doesn't matter and neither does yours. The constitution does not give us the right to legally interpret it. There is a system in place for creating, enforcing, and challenging laws--the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government.
We elect people to the executive to appoint people to the judicial that are confirmed by the legislative branch of government. These checks and balances are the bedrock of our country.
Conservatives live within the law as a matter of principle. We don't kill abortion providers even if we are antiabortion. We work to get people elected so that the constitution can be amended to prevent abortion. We work within the system.
Plaxico broke an existing law and should pay the penalty for doing so. He has lots of money and therefore probably very good attorneys. If he wants to challenge the law on constitutional grounds and wins, he won't be punished for carrying the gun. That would then be what he deserves.
Plaxico wasn't trying to test the second amendment, he was just arrogant. He knew that the club was safe because they had metal detectors at the door. He was the only fool in the club packing heat. By shooting himself, he gave every anti-gun nut a talking point- he REALLY WAS in more danger with the gun than without it.
You get one 'off the street' from the dude with the long overcoat.
Suppose the law was that you had to buy an M4 and that was the only gun allowed. Would it be constitutional?
You probably can’t... Government agents will attempt to kill you if you don’t comply with their arbitrary edicts.
Sorry, but I believe in being a responsible person.
------------------------------------------------
What the Second Amendment does is to expressly forbid one particular, and particularly extravagant, extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. Whatever the federal government does or fails to do about the militia, the Second Amendment forbids it from disarming citizens under the pretense of regulating the militia.
I’m calling you a troll because you’re trying to make an argument out of something that doesn’t exist.
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.