Due to the slightly paranoid “us against them” attitude I acquired while growing up, I like the idea o being able to own a hand gun. How else will I be able to protect myself should the U.S. government run amok and attempt to strip away my human rights? How else might I be able to save myself and my children from the burglar or rapist who breaks into my house when I forget to turn on my alarm? How else would I protect myself from the hoards of virus-infected and/or radioactive zombies encircling my house looking for fresh human brains? I live in a house with big windows, I need a gun to show the evil dead that I mean business.
I’m just sayin’. Liz From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Conservative Justices Abandon Strict Construction? It's all a question of power. Should the individual have the power to defend his home, family and person. I say yes. The most reasonable way to have this power is with commonly available firearms. J. "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." US Constitution, Amendment II We all know the story behind this contentious bit of legalese. The republic's first generation was worried about a nationalized, standing army. For all they knew, the President would become a dictator or Congress would enslave the States. The compromise was to protect the State militias. It was hoped that the militias would balance a national army. Hence, the Second Amendment. Fast forward 200 years. We have a very advanced, nationalized, standing military that conducts operations all over the world. The State militias have evolved into the National Guard. So, how does that affect the Second Amendment? Does Joe the Plumber have a constitutional right to own a handgun? The Supreme Court has said precious little about this, but the Court has always tied gun ownership to the militia clause. Until this summer, that is. The Court ruled (5-4) that an individual's right to own a gun did not derive from a need for State militias, as had always been thought. Rather, the right to "bear arms" was an independent, pre-existing right. All that militia stuff was just a comment - just one reason to protect the individual's right to own a gun. The other judges called "bullshit!" The Second Amendment has always been about militias. Past Court decisions have always affirmed that connection, and even if the Constitution does prevent *Congress* from outlawing guns, the text clearly gives regulatory rights to the States. Or so they say. What do you say? Aaron http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001";> check it out! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
