See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Justices agree on right to own guns [Supremes say '2A means what it says']
Source:
AP Newswire
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
Published: Mar 18, 2008
Author: Mark Sherman
Post Date: 2008-03-18 17:27:49 by mirage
Keywords: None
Views: 1273
Comments: 68
WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago. Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far. The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other. Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia. Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said. Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked. Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review." The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court. Gun rights proponents were encouraged. "What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments. A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons. Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it. This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court. In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday. "When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said. Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable. "There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said. On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter. Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight. While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns." Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime." The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court. The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights. Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-6) not displayed.
.
.
.
#7. To: PSUSA (#6)
I do if only to be able to say "Someone actually gets it and I'm not alone."
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
IOW, when SG Paul Clement says he supports the individual right to keep and bear arms, he's a lying sack of crap!
Pinguinite.com EcuadorTreasures.ec
And it's absolutely anyone's guess what these clowns will decide on even the most obvious issues.
Pinguinite.com EcuadorTreasures.ec
The SCOTUS was politically over run by World Communist-Globalists a long time ago...there's some sitting on the bench this very minute. That Court has repeatedly proven to be nothing but a kangaroo repository.
Our last hope for peace Who would turn them in??? I personally dont give a damn what SCOTUS says. It might not matter so much for the guns you already own, but any guns that you'd buy down the line (and probably ammo, accessories, etc) would be black market only. You'd go from walking into a sporting goods store and legally buying these things to risking going to Federal prison for doing the same thing. Frankly, I don't trust Obama, Mad Mac, or Hillary to appoint Supreme Court justices who won't decide down the road that 2E means national guard only.
IOW, this particular stain is an enemy of America and a stoolie for Amerika...
Our last hope for peace That is precisely why I dont care.
------They may look intimidating, by design, but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Suuuure, you can have guns. Over here, pellet guns, here, single action rifles and muzzleloaders....sorry, tasers are for law enforcement only. Same with that one and that one. Sorry, it's the law.
"Look well therefore to this Day!" ~ Kalidasa
I liked Son of Liberty's take over on LF when he said something to the effect, "I could care less about the pronouncements from old whithered lips..."
"Look well therefore to this Day!" ~ Kalidasa
Who knows.... could happen.... Why I hear that a gun woke up the other day, ran outside and started blasting trees, fire hydrants, the road and the sidewalks. Who knows, WE COULD BE NEXT!!!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Ah, just like the good old USSR. You have plenty of rights, comrade. Just look at the list of them! However, they can be revoked at any time for any reason. With the USSC, the entire bill of rights can be explained away with a simple "because we say so."
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
When the Power to Rebel is Ignored - http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=76147
Why I hear that a gun woke up the other day, ran outside and started blasting trees, fire hydrants, the road and the sidewalks. Who knows, WE COULD BE NEXT!!! "All these firearms were on anti-depressants. They could kill again.” More Dees Illustrations: ............ I recently made the perfect DVD combo: Freedom to Fascism, Keep and Bear Arms, Zeitgeist II & III. I removed the credits so it plays straight through for four hours. It is outstanding and I offer it free to any and all. I think I can afford to say that.
It's not ignored. It's actively discounted. If the economy were back on track most Americans would be happy with the way things are going. Few want to rebel because they don't see anything to rebel against. However, many would fight tooth and nail, or at the very least drop dimes on those that resisted, to maintain the current situation. Statism is popular, not Freedom.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
You are 100% correct. Still, the concern must be voiced.
Governments kill on massive scales, one hundred MILLION in the last century alone. So the real debate about protecting humans and citizen very much needs to focus on not personally held guns but on the restraint and control of governments.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Correct, and if you read the second amendment correctly that is exactly what it says. A well regulated militia (regulated by the government) being neccessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS PROTECTION FROM THAT WELL REGULATED MILITIA, shall not be infringed. That is what the amendment actually says when it is correctly read.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
No, this interpretation concerning the relationship of the People and the militia is incorrect. The most important thing to note about the Second Amendment is that it only refers to one of the three parties referenced in the Constitution: The People. The amendment does not refer to the United States (federal government) or any of its three branches. The amendement does not refer to the States. It refers only to "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." Yes, the word "state" is used, but the word starts with a lower case letter, while uppercase was used to reference the idea of a State of the United States, so "state" was referring to the type of government, free republics, that both the States and the United States were intended to be. The militia IS the people, those with recourse to arms. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, only those who can bear arms are FREE, and it is to this tradition that we owe most of our Anglo-American legal traditions and philosophy. The name for the German tribe, Saxon, was derived from the name of the special knife Saxons carried as the main credential of a freeman. In Tacitus' history, ON GERMANIA, the Roman historian discusses the social order of German tribes like the Saxons. The Germans did not have a standing professional army like Rome. All the free men of the tribe comprised the tribe's military as they were armed. The tribal leader could not order them into war, but had to seek their consent in special councils of all the freemen. The freemen would come to the coucil carrying their arms. If they agreed with the leader, they would wave their spears. If not, they would mutter among themselves. The richer men of the tribe maintained small retinues of armed men to protect their land holdings. They were trained, professional fighters, called by Tacitus "The Comitatus." These men would keep the freemen of the tribe trained in the arts of warfare at different times during the year. This was supposed to be how the militias of the various States worked. The militia was comprised of all freemen with arms of a particular State, trained by members of the small regular federal Army and regulated as to its composition, ranks, etc. by Congress. This structure reflects the old ancient Saxon model, codified in the Constitution.
All that is in doubt now. We're MULTICULTURAL. Others don't understand, can't be expected to understand, and if the elites have their way, should be prevented from understanding.
Yes, people forgetting their history, traditions, and the underlying philosophy of their laws is a problem, but remember, no matter where someone might have been born and raised, these notions of what the rights of free men and women are are UNIVERSAL. A Chinese immigrant from Fukien Province can know it, a Pakistani immigrant running a bookstore can know it. The problem is in their shaking off those aspects of their old culture that prevent them from embracing these principles.
Evry one of these "judges" has their own gun, whilst the subjects can not possess one. ..and yet they're pompously arguing the 2nd Amendment. The Founders are spinning in their graves.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx A well regulated militia (regulated by the government) being neccessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS PROTECTION FROM THAT WELL REGULATED MILITIA, shall not be infringed. That is what the amendment actually says when it is correctly read. That is not correct. --------------------- It's not bad but they miss two cogent points. The archaic definition of "well-regulated" has nothing to do with laws or bureaucratic regulations. In the 1700s it meant smooth or well practiced. armsandthel aw.com/archives/2007/04/penn_teller_gun.php ------------------------- and ----------------------------- also Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989) p. 138 for definition of "well-regulated" "WELL-'REGULATED, p[artici]p[ia]l[.] a[djective]. 1709 SHAFTSB._Moralists_II. iv. 108 If a liberal Education has form'd in us . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations. 1714 R. FIDDES._Pract._Disc._II. 250 The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world. 1812 J. JOYCE._Sci._Dial.,_Astron._xii. II. 126 The equation of time . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock, and a true sun-dial. 1848 THACKERAY_Van._Fair._lviii, A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major. 1862 MRS. H. WOOD_Mrs._Hallib._I. v. 27 It appeared, to her well- regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding. 1894 _Pop._ _Sci._Monthly._June 165 The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." www.hoboes.com/pub/Firear...urces/Frequently%20Asked% 20Questions/Long%20List%20of%20Gun%20Control%20Myths --------------------------------
------They may look intimidating, by design, but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Not just the founders. John McCain Sr. is spinning in his grave too.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
I doubt it. Slavery is the norm, not the exception.
truth bump
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
In our Big Brother world of stealth bombers capable of delivering cluster bombs, this is a very complex statement. A granny willing to teach her family how to avoid having their young children drugged and brainwashed might be doing much more than a marksman. The point is to be armed with something against tyranny. That might be an idea. It might be the ability to influence others. To me, it seems that sitting still leads to slavery even under ideal conditions. Inertia propels a country toward slavery, just because the traitors never rest.
In our Big Brother world of stealth bombers capable of delivering cluster bombs, this is a very complex statement. A granny willing to teach her family how to avoid having their young children drugged and brainwashed might be doing much more than a marksman. The point is to be armed with something against tyranny. That might be an idea. It might be the ability to influence others. To me, it seems that sitting still leads to slavery even under ideal conditions. Inertia propels a country toward slavery, just because the traitors never rest. "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear." -- Cicero Marcus Tullius
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Political correctness sets out to protect the weak from the strong but ends up protecting traitors from criticism.
No and yes. PC has zero good intention. Those that think so encourage the perpetrators to do more of it.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
--------------------- It's not bad but they miss two cogent points. The archaic definition of "well-regulated" has nothing to do with laws or bureaucratic regulations. In the 1700s it meant smooth or well practiced. A well regulated militia (regulated by the government) being neccessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS PROTECTION FROM THAT WELL REGULATED MILITIA, shall not be infringed. That is what the amendment actually says when it is correctly read. Your point is correct, only I abbreviated; A well regulated militia (organized until it is well practiced by the government) being neccessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS PROTECTION FROM THAT WELL REGULATED MILITIA, shall not be infringed. That is what the amendment actually says when it is correctly read. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The point is that the militia is to be called out by the government, and the people were to be armed as protection from that militia. Somewhere I have a complete breakdown about this, just too lazy right now to dig it out!
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Wrong. We are the militia. We have a protected right to keep and bear arms because we need them as militia members.
............ I recently made the perfect DVD combo: Freedom to Fascism, Keep and Bear Arms, Zeitgeist II & III. I removed the credits so it plays straight through for four hours. It is outstanding and I offer it free to any and all. I think I can afford to say that.
Sorry, no we are not. The militia was to be called up in the event of war or rebellion. If you wish, I will dig out the paper I have on it.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
In your opinion, why was it left to an act of mentionable effort?
Judges talking like politicians. Hey, thanks, so I guess all the cops don't have to be non- American. Whoo-hoo.
Bullet proof vest, though: Another matter entirely. No wait, the court can tell us with a straight face that Americans have a right to wear bullet-proof vests. Then, I woke up.
It is not. It is plain English. With proper grammer. Which is the real key.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Point being, man had a right to defend himself, period.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
It is not modern formal or colloquial writing, by any stretch of the imagination. It is elliptical, going solely on logic alone, unless it is lacking some secret now-unused mumbo-jumbo key to de-ellipticizing it. Trust me, I can read stuff and right off the bat there looks like a misplaced comma in there (the last one) or a missing "and" that would work best if the two subjects were reversed in order. Other possibilities are there involving minimal clarifications, and so I won't suggest the list here is special. The point is, I'm not the only one debating the subject with you or anyone else.
Absolutely. Been a couple of kings in history that lost their heads over that point. Probably should be a couple more shortly, if it could be arranged. Well, one is only a vice king, but what the hey.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
How about: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and carry conventional firearms shall not be infringed." Did I commit an unpardonable translation? How about: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state requires that the right of all people to keep and open-carry firearms shall not be infringed." Is that worse, or better?
OK, I was being lazy. I should have just looked this up and posted it right away. By the way, this is something I wrote about 10 years ago. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As a further explanation, let me add here what the people of the 1790s understood very well; the Second Amendment Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is an "AMENDMENT". (Actually, the Second Amendment is an ARTICLE; not an Amendment. The Bill of Rights has it’s own Preamble, and stands as a separate document. However, what is being said here is correct, as far as the meaning of the “changes in intent” accomplished by the Second Article of the Bill of Rights. The Articles of the Bill of Rights did not change the wording “within” the Constitution, but they did clarify and, in this case in particular, add absolute prohibitions to the Constitution. – Richard) None of the "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution (commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights) stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be knowledge to any American claiming patriot status that the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was decided that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitution’s) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791. (The Constitution was not officially “adopted” by the states until the Bill of Rights was presented, and both were adopted at the same time. The Constitution was not in force prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and this is why George Washington did not take office prior to this. – Richard) In this Light: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA." The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers." What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States? To answer this one must first understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. One popular definition used was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was (and is) every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment . "Militia" as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in the original Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: "To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: "To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" still out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution? If so, obey your commander: Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers Clinton: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED." The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by "restrictive clauses." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED?" By demanding that the Second Amendment be added to the original Constitution providing: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA!" Now the brightness of the Light may require sunglasses: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Is it not amazing how understanding clears the air? And please note, in reading this with a new understanding, the Second Amendment becomes an absolute ban on any type of restrictions placed upon the people owning arms by the “government.” ANY restrictions. Want a machine gun? Well, if you are a United States citizen, no, because you have the same status as a slave/property, and as such, no Rights. Please see the federal court decisions regarding United States citizens and the Bill of Rights. Now, one more piece of the puzzle; the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Once you understand what is being said in this Preamble, everything else begins to make more sense!: Preamble to the Bill of Rights; Articles in AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES begun and held at the city of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, express a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembles, two thirds of both Houses concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of that said Legislatures, to be to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives. John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. Attest, John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam A. Otis Secretary of the Senate.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Comments (48 - 68) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI personally dont give a damn what SCOTUS says.
#8. To: mirage (#0)
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.
#9. To: PSUSA (#6)
I personally dont give a damn what SCOTUS says.
#10. To: PSUSA (#6)
I personally dont give a damn what SCOTUS says.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#11. To: PSUSA (#6)
Suppose it had gone the other way. Total ban, national guard only, etc. blah blah blah.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#8)
Solicitor General Paul Clement
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#13. To: Pinguinite (#9)
And it's absolutely anyone's guess what these clowns will decide on even the most obvious issues.
#14. To: mirage (#0)
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms
#15. To: PSUSA (#13)
#16. To: FOH (#5)
"Guns kill," responded the other.
#17. To: mirage (#0)
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree.
#18. To: Pissed Off Janitor, richard9151, angle (#17)
#19. To: richard9151 (#16)
"Guns kill," responded the other. Who knows.... could happen....
freedom4um.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=75692
#20. To: buckeye (#18)
When the Power to Rebel is Ignored
#21. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#20)
However, many would fight tooth and nail, or at the very least drop dimes on those that resisted, to maintain the current situation.
#22. To: mirage (#0)
Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
#23. To: tom007 (#22)
So the real debate about protecting humans and citizen very much needs to focus on not personally held guns but on the restraint and control of governments.
#24. To: richard9151 (#23)
#25. To: roughrider (#24)
The militia IS the people, those with recourse to arms. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, only those who can bear arms are FREE, and it is to this tradition that we owe most of our Anglo-American legal traditions and philosophy.
#26. To: buckeye (#25)
#27. To: mirage (#0)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#28. To: richard9151, ALL (#23)
Correct, and if you read the second amendment correctly that is exactly what it says.
#29. To: IndieTX (#27)
The Founders are spinning in their graves.
#30. To: roughrider (#26)
...these notions of what the rights of free men and women are are UNIVERSAL...
#31. To: roughrider (#24)
only those who can bear arms are FREE,
#32. To: Peppa, roughrider (#31)
only those who can bear arms are FREE,
#33. To: buckeye (#32)
only those who can bear arms are FREE,
#34. To: Peppa (#33)
#35. To: buckeye (#34)
Political correctness sets out to protect the weak from the strong but ends up protecting traitors from criticism.
#36. To: PSUSA (#28)
That is not correct.
#37. To: richard9151 (#23)
"AS PROTECTION FROM THAT WELL REGULATED MILITIA, "
#38. To: wakeup (#37)
We are the militia.
#39. To: richard9151 (#36)
when it is correctly read
#40. To: mirage (#0)
Americans have a right to own guns
#41. To: mirage (#0)
#42. To: nobody (#39)
In your opinion, why was it left to an act of mentionable effort?
#43. To: richard9151 (#38)
#44. To: richard9151 (#42)
#45. To: Peppa (#43)
Point being, man had a right to defend himself, period.
#46. To: richard9151 (#42)
#47. To: nobody (#44)
It is not modern formal or colloquial writing
.
.
.