When people are talking about the constitution, they try to figure out what the founding fathers meant by this and that as if they were gods. The founding fathers are dead and I don't particularly care how they would interpret something. What I care about is what is in the best interest of the world as we know it now. Trying to figure out what the founding fathers would do or what they meant is like trying to figure out what a doctor of that age would do to treat cancer. It is irrelevant. The bottom line is I am packing a legal pistol and I am happy that law abiding citizens have that right. J. In a message dated 10/24/2008 7:24:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi y'all - I always have something to say! I like the comment, comment regarding Militia. The clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't matter what the reason is, the intent is clear. If the sentence had continued "on Jesus' birthday" or some other modification, then the right could have been restricted, but the operative word is infringed, which to me means, chipping away at the edges of, in this context. Let's not let anyone chip away at it. On Oct 24, 4:17 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "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 **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
