Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DustyMoment
"First, it is astonishing that the Ninth Circus . . . . . er, Cicuit made this ruling. Second, while I disagree with the foundation of the ruling justice's opinion (that the right to bear arms was a bulwark against external invasion), they still made the right decision. In point of fact, the Second Amendment was written to balance the power of the people against the power of a strong central government. It still remains (IMO) possible that we may exercise our Second Amendment rights in exactly the manner that the Founding Fathers envisioned."

That is what you said. It doesn't actually reference the "article" from SAF but paraphrases a portion of the actual decision, from which it appears you made the assumption that defense against government tyranny was not addressed therein, when in fact it was.

One would think you'd be pleased to learn it was an aspect of the decision, but rather you argue about the content of an article you did not even mention in your original post.

If you have a problem with what SAF published in reference to this issue you should take it up with them.

69 posted on 04/21/2009 10:44:45 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (I hope he fails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: Clinging Bitterly

The linked article I referred to was at the bottom of the posted article and was from Yahoo Finance. I have no issues with SAF, FR, or even Yahoo Finance, but I do have issues with you because I have repeatedly posted that what I read made no mention of the reference to the original justification for the Second Amendment.

You have repeatedly insisted that I didn’t read the decision so I must be ignorant. I even posted verbatim the article from Yahoo Finance and asked you to show me where, in that article, it made any reference to the Founder’s original intent. Rather than respond to my request, you, again, pointed out that I didn’t read the full decision and directed me to particular pages in the original decision which were not in the Yahoo Finance article.

So, you read the material at SAF, I read the article that was linked to the FR posting at Yahoo Finance. I am thrilled that the SCOTUS still acknowledges that the Founder’s original justification and intent was to provide the citizens a counterbalance against a strong central government. It’s comforting to know that, occasionally, the SCOTUS still provides passing acknowledgement of the Founder’s original intentions with the BOR, even though they don’t do it often enough.


70 posted on 04/22/2009 4:52:11 PM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson