There you go again appealing to Authority ... pretending that what
the Court says is instead what the Constitution states.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever
Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an
army upon their
ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during
floor debate over the Second Amendment , August 17, 1789
Regard$,
--MJ
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any
bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the
United States" -- Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading
Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at
swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification
At 11:09 AM 1/13/2011, you wrote:
A well regulated militia,...
(there's those pesky regulations again...)
---------------------------------------------------
[The second amendment] is an individual right, unconnected with
service in a militia" US Supreme Court, June 8, 2008.
That one is OVER! Try again in another 70 years
On Jan 13, 8:01 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 12:19 AM 1/13/2011, you wrote:A well regulated militia,...
> (there's those pesky regulations again...)
> ...being necessary to the security of a free State,
> In reality you have identified a nominative absolute.(if it's
necessary, government should provide them to me for free)
> No. Legitimate Government SECURES rights. It is not a gang that
> plunders SOME to the benefit of OTHERS.the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> And you have found the 'meat and potatoes' of the sentence.
> Remember diagramming way back when ...Infringed; advance beyond
the usual limit. Go against as in rules or
> laws.
> (I wonder what the usual limit was back then? I bet most people had a
> dozen or more back in 1776.)
> A perusal of the REMAINDER of the Constitution quckly reveal that
> no power exists to 'infringe' in the first place.I'll assume Arms
refers to any weapon able to fit in ones arms, and
> not specifically a gun anymore than a spear or sword.
> Why can't I have a bazooka or rocket launcher?
> It fits in my arms.
> Because Government is VIOLATING its charter.And it would also
make any guns people carry practically valueless in
> the same way guns made spears and swords valueless.
> Not really, but if it aids your pleasing vision.
> Regard$,
> --MJ "A well-educated electorate being necessary for
self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep
and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would
suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?
--Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
