#397772 - 10/14/0403:56 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
RMW 1,
I share your concern for your boat. Still you didn't answer my questions about the 2nd amendment. I thought the Constitution and the rule of law was the foundation of our Democracy. Not your personal beliefs or fears. Where am I wrong?
Very good Ray, beat me to it. Now add this, the four most important words of the second amendment are not "A well regulated militia...". They are "....shall not be infringed.".
#397774 - 10/14/0404:01 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Z-Man.
Military-shmilitary. It is called obfuscation. The second amendment didn't intend any weapons to be used in violation of the law and for petty purposes.
#397776 - 10/14/0404:04 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
richard4878
Member
Registered: 03/14/03
Posts: 994
In my opinio there is 2 ways the second amendment can be read.
1.the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed to keep A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
2.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
#397778 - 10/14/0404:06 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Baitrunner
Member
Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 1366
DB, With respects, sir, the most important words in the 2nd Amendment, are "The PEOPLE"!, a reference to the individual, NOT the COLLECTIVE!
I'd like to thank the "Neo-coms" on this board for reminding me why I'll vote for Bush! Just for a fleeting second last night, I actually considered sKerry, but you extreme lefties scare the living crap out of me; much more than anything Mr. Bush has done, or will do.
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
#397780 - 10/14/0404:16 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Baitrunner
Member
Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 1366
DB, Hope did not interpret my remark as a slight; it was not. I'm enough of a constitutional "scholar" to know that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as the 4th amendment, (The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes"), is an individual, not a collective right.
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
#397781 - 10/14/0404:17 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
One more reading piece (bold face is mine):
Quote:
"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. "
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints.
The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
Previous Topic
Index