Robert Hemus wrote:
Michael, you really need to read the Constitution, and apply the wording to the Second Amendment.
I have read the constitution. And am very familiar with the wording of Amendment II. Exactly what part of "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 in dispute? It says what it says and was never in dispute until less than a century ago when the Supreme Court began to do Congress' job.
The Supreme Court did in '39, I believe, and it is lawful (Constitutional) to write laws to limit individuals rights to bear arms.
Not so. The ruling by the suprememe court was over the Nationa Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The item in dispute from a case here in Arkansas was a short-barreled shotgun. There was no defense counsel present. And in lieu of any opposing arguments the SC took the government's word verbatim in ruling that a short-barreled shotgun had no relevance to the militia since such were not used by the U.S. military. Which was wrong since such they were used extensively in the trench warfare of WWI only 20 years earlier.
If you take that ruling at face value then anything used by the infantry sections of the U.S. military would be lawful to own and carry by a citizen.
It is not lawful to write laws that violate the language, spirit, and original intent of the highest law of the land. That our government frequently ignores this does not make it right.
Michael _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
