Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional Rights
Michael Ejercito
Jacob Sullum
Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
Rights
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies
to states and cities as well as the federal government. Judging from
their objections, the four dissenters were still reeling from the
court's landmark 2008 decision recognizing that the amendment protects
an individual right to keep and bear arms.
In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen
Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that
overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If "the people"
want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to
implement that desire through their elected representatives.
What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an
official church or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at
will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions
that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial
difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy
like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.
Likewise, Stevens defends "state and local legislatures' right to
experiment," while Breyer is loath to interfere with "the ability of
states to reflect local preferences and conditions -- both key virtues
of federalism." Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard
state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on
the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce,
this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.
Another reason to doubt the dissenters' sincerity: They would never
accept federalism as a rationale for letting states "experiment" with
freedom of speech, freedom of religion or due process protections.
Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding
"local preferences" that give short shrift to constitutional rights.
Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because
"determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law
requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions." So
does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or
depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting
illegally obtained evidence or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog
sniffs or infrared surveillance.
When they decide whether a law or practice violates a constitutional
right, courts cannot avoid empirical questions. In cases involving
racial discrimination or content-based speech restrictions, for
example, they ask whether the challenged law is "narrowly tailored to
serve a compelling state interest" and is the "least restrictive
means" of doing so.
But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says,
"firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."
How so? "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and
property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and
insurrectionists murder innocent victims."
Every right can be abused, with results that are immoral, illegal or
both. Freedom of speech can be used to spread hateful ideas, promote
pernicious political philosophies, slander the innocent or engage in
criminal conspiracies. If there were no potential for harm from
exercising a right, there would be no need to protect it, because no
one would try to restrict it.
The dissenters' most frivolous objection is that making states obey
the Second Amendment "invites an avalanche of litigation," as Stevens
puts it. Every day we hear about cases in which people argue that the
government has violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth or Eighth amendment. Neither Stevens nor Breyer wants to stop
this "avalanche." Only when the Second Amendment is added to the mix
do they recoil in horror at the prospect that Americans will use the
courts to vindicate their rights.
Stevens warns that "the practical significance of the proposition that
'the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states' remains
to be worked out by this court over many, many years." But that's
because the court for many, many years ignored the Second Amendment
while gradually defining the contours of its neighbors in the Bill of
Rights. There is a lot of catching up to do.
lil abner
only have such privileges, as the politicians and special interest
groups such as socialists care to let us have.
These People aren't fulfilling their oath. They are on the Bench to turn
the Repbulic and Constitution on its head.
This is the founded fear I have ob Kegan.
Gray Ghost
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
>>Rights
>
> Only because activist judges called it that way
>
> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>
well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
BTW how is the black powder coming?
--
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be
sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything
or nothing at pleasure."
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
lil abner
> Nor...@tweet.net wrote in news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>> <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
>>> Rights
>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>>
>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>
>
>
> well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>
> BTW how is the black powder coming?
>
First Post.
If you don't misspell it as you did the definition of the word is: The
state or quality of being ludicrous
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:ludicrousness&sa=X&ei=lLsrTOKbJYT68AaQo42kCg&ved=0CBIQkAE
Bill Smith
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
>>Rights
>
>Only because activist judges called it that way
>
>"For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>"reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>"activist judges legislating from the bench"
"A well educated voting populace, being necessary for an informed
electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not
be infringed."
Does that mean that books may only be kept and read by well educated
people who vote?
Bill Smith
lil abner
Of course those who passed a rigorous instructional course and completed
assigned book reports and are active teachers or retired teachers will
be able to exercise the privledge to read anything anywhere anytime.
Gray Ghost
Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for ludicrous speed! Fasten all seatbelts, seal
all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the three ring
circus, secure all animals in the zoo!
And yes people, I spelled it right the first time.
Bill Smith
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:57:28 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>"For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>"reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>"activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>
>>"A well educated voting populace, being necessary for an informed
>>electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not
>>be infringed."
>>
>>Does that mean that books may only be kept and read by well educated
>>people who vote?
>
>Where did you get that sillyness?
>
>The original scheme of government was not to let the general
>population elect anyone. THe founders distrusted the general
>population with power to influence government too much.
>
>The analogy has no relevance---but if it makes you feel
>better---that's okay
It has no relevance if you decide to ignore it.
>However, recent rulings of the 2nd amendment are indisputably a case
>of "reading" into a phrase a range of things the actual wording does
>not contain. (better known as "judicial activism")
>
>IOW, it's the opposite of "literal interpretation" so favored by
>rightwingers and idiots everywhere.
All you have to do is show where any of the founders felt the right to
keep and bear arms was to be limited to militia duty exclusively.
If I have the right to life and liberty, I have the right to defend
them because we can only keep the rights we can defend.
This collective rights nonsense is a modern invention.
Bill Smith
deadrat
Nonsense. What the founders felt is not known with certainty. When it is
known for some, it probably wasn't shared by all. And the founders were
just hunkey-dorey with slavery and male-only suffrage. This is why we have
a Supreme Court.
> If I have the right to life and liberty, I have the right to defend
> them because we can only keep the rights we can defend.
This is not an unreasonable point of view in theory or in certain practice,
e.g., when your life and safety is immediately threatened, but you have no
right of private action in general and must rely on the mechanisms of the
state.
> This collective rights nonsense is a modern invention.
Your opinion is noted.
Bill Smith
>
>
Michael Ejercito
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
> >Rights
>
>
> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
Michael
lil abner
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:10:34 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote:
>
>> According to Kagan's view on Rights, it can be only approved books!
>
>
>> Of course those who passed a rigorous instructional course and completed
>> assigned book reports and are active teachers or retired teachers will
>> be able to exercise the privledge to read anything anywhere anytime.
>
> Tea-whackoffs here.
>
It was just tongue in cheek.
Bill Smith
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:14:22 -0400, Zombywoof <fish...@live.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>There was no "debate" on just "owning" a gun for traditional purposes.
>>>
>>Nope, just owning one -- which according to one act you actually have
>>an obligation to do.
>>--
>
>Exactly---but linked only to the Militia.
You have a cite for this?
Bill Smith
Gray Ghost
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:45:46 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
>>>>Rights
>>>
>>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>>>
>>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>>
>>
>>
>>well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>
> By citing the amendment?
>
> Amazing
>
Whbat part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
--
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be
sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything
or nothing at pleasure."
裕homas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:04:44 -0400, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>"For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
> >>"reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
> >>"activist judges legislating from the bench"
>
> >could Congress have ever come up with the following on May 8, 1792:
>
> >Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective
> >States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years,
> >and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after
> >excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the
> >militia...
>
> Well, there ya go
And today, Congress requires all male residents at least 18 years
old to be registered for the Selective Service.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well, there ya go
> > And today, Congress requires all male residents at least 18 years
> >old to be registered for the Selective Service.
>
Wrong.
Michael
Bill Smith
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:38:19 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Exactly---but linked only to the Militia.
>>
>>You have a cite for this?
>
>THe wording of the 2nd is quite clear
>
>The INTERPRETATION by heretofore "literalst" judges who bemoan
>"legislation from the bench" and "activist judges" "reading into that
>text a non-literal meaning is hypocrisy
>
>But thats what we claim rightwingers always are---hypocritical
>assholes.
You said linked ONLY to the Militia, that's not what the amendment
says.
There is no evidence that the Framers of the Constitution felt this
should be so. There' is plenty of evidence in the Federalist papers
and in the writings of the Framers that what you suggest is simply not
so. The individual right to arms is enshrined in at least forty State
Constitutions and most if not all of the original thirteen. I expect
that the Framers when confronted with this revisionist view of what
the 2nd Amendment means would be quite astonished.
Bill Smith
Ray Fischer
>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in news:n0an26dnosqp9l44o...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:45:46 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
>>>>>Rights
>>>>
>>>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>>>>
>>>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>>
>> By citing the amendment?
>>
>> Amazing
>
>Whbat part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Gray Ghost
news:4c2ee4b3$0$1672$742e...@news.sonic.net:
And your proof is?
Speaking of ignoring the Constitution:
I would have quoted a "real" (ie state run) news reporting agency, but they
all seem to have been asleep, drunk or being fucked in the ass and seem to
have missed such interesting news.
Yeah, your Democrats. You got balls Ray, you sure do. Deemed as passed? O deem
the death penalty for all Democrats. Summararily. No vote needed.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37893
House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’
by Connie Hair
07/02/2010
Last night, as part of a procedural vote on the emergency war supplemental
bill, House Democrats attached a document that "deemed as passed" a non-
existent $1.12 trillion budget. The execution of the "deeming" document allows
Democrats to start spending money for Fiscal Year 2011 without the pesky
constraints of a budget.
The procedural vote passed 215-210 with no Republicans voting in favor and 38
Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against deeming the faux budget
resolution passed.
Never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has
the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the
non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a
budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money.
House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) warned this was the
green light for Democrats to continue their out-of-control spending virtually
unchecked.
"Facing a record deficit and a tidal wave of debt, House Democrats decided it
was politically inconvenient to put forward a budget and account for their
fiscal recklessness. With no priorities and no restraints, the spending,
taxing, and borrowing will continue unchecked for the coming fiscal year,"
Ryan said. "The so-called ‘budget enforcement resolution’ enforces no budget,
but instead provides a green light for the Appropriators to continue spending,
exacerbating our looming fiscal crisis."
As we reported on HUMAN EVENTS, CBO issued a dire warning about the long term
outlook for the budget.
"Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office rang the latest fiscal alarm with
the release of The Long-Term Budget Outlook," Ryan said. "Today, Congress
again hit snooze. To avert a fiscal and economic calamity, Washington needs
to wake up."
Key points from the House Republican Budget staff on the House Democrats’
deeming resolution:
- This is not a budget. The measure fails to meet the most basic,
commonly understood objectives of any budget. It does not set congressional
priorities; it does not align overall spending, tax, deficit, and debt levels;
and it does nothing to address the runaway spending of Federal entitlement
programs.
- It is not a ‘congressional budget resolution.’ The measure does not
satisfy even the most basic criteria of a budget resolution as set forth in
the Congressional Budget Act.
- It creates a deception of spending ‘restraint.’ While claiming
restraint in discretionary spending, the resolution increases non-emergency
spending by $30 billion over 2010, and includes a number of gimmicks that give
a green light to higher spending.
- It continues relying on the flawed and over-sold pay-as-you-go [pay-
go] procedure. Pay-go – which Democrats have used mainly to raise taxes, and
have ignored when it was inconvenient – does nothing to reduce deficits or
restrain spending growth in existing law.
- Outsourcing fiscal responsibilities. The measure is another hand-off
by the Democratic Majority of Congress’s power of the purse – this time
relying on the Fiscal Commission created by the President to do Congress’s
job.
A full Republican Budget Committee staff analysis of the Majority’s Budget
Deemer: "An Admission of Fiscal Failure"
--
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be
sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything
or nothing at pleasure."
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
Ray Fischer
>>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>>well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>>>>
>>>> By citing the amendment?
>>>>
>>>> Amazing
>>>
>>>Whbat part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
>>
>> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>>
>And your proof is?
First, I note your selective quoting of the 2nd amendment.
Second I note your murderous hatred of freedom.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
tankfixer
says...
Why should anyone listen to you ?
You drown kittens..
Gray Ghost
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
You have moved beyond silly. Have the nurses come to take you back to your bed
yet?
Gray Ghost
news:MPG.26993d7...@news.bytemine.net:
He's got a lot of balls for an anonymous coward.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c2f8041$0$1661
>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:45:46 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>>>>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>>>>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in
>>
>>>>>>>well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By citing the amendment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing
>>>>>
>>>>>Whbat part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
>>>>
>>>> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>>>>
>>>And your proof is?
>>
>> First, I note your selective quoting of the 2nd amendment.
>> Second I note your murderous hatred of freedom.
>
>You have moved beyond silly.
You're just a chickenshit rightard coward who doesn't even have the
courage to own your own hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Peter Franks
...
> But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says,
> "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."
> How so? "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and
> property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and
> insurrectionists murder innocent victims."
Only because the liberal mentality keeps letting the thugs out of prison.
You want to stop violent crime? Here's the answer: execute violent
criminals.
Only the fool thinks that abrogating the rights of the law abiding is a
solution to violent crime. Only the fool...
Gray Ghost
if I don't hate, Ray how do I own it?
This is getting very silly. You haven't actually answered any opf my questions
and I've let you draw me into this childish exchange. You are exhibting
classic leftist behavior. I may have to draw up a new Law for you just based
on the accusations of hate.
--
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be
sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything
or nothing at pleasure."
裕homas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
Ray Fischer
>Michael Ejercito wrote:
>...
>> But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says,
>> "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."
>> How so? "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and
>> property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and
>> insurrectionists murder innocent victims."
>
>Only because the liberal mentality keeps letting the thugs out of prison.
Better to use summary execution like any proper dictatorship and trash
all that liberal crap about "rights" and "trials".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kent Wills
Ghost) wrote:
>>>> First, I note your selective quoting of the 2nd amendment.
>>>> Second I note your murderous hatred of freedom.
>>>
>>>You have moved beyond silly.
>>
>> You're just a chickenshit rightard coward who doesn't even have the
>> courage to own your own hate.
>>
>
>if I don't hate, Ray how do I own it?
>
>This is getting very silly. You haven't actually answered any opf my questions
>and I've let you draw me into this childish exchange. You are exhibting
>classic leftist behavior. I may have to draw up a new Law for you just based
>on the accusations of hate.
How about this.
When forced to face their own intense hate, leftists will always
project that hate onto others.
Feel free to tweak the wording, if you wish.
--
There is a chasm
of carbon and silicon
the software can't bridge.
Gray Ghost
news:0eh0365cggr49sdhb...@4ax.com:
Excellent, i'm going to take that and think on it for a bit. Will be the 10th
law.
Oglethorpe
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4c300d90$0$1635$742e...@news.sonic.net...
security of a free state".
Ray Fischer
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
i
>>This is getting very silly. You haven't actually answered any opf my questions
>>and I've let you draw me into this childish exchange. You are exhibting
>>classic leftist behavior. I may have to draw up a new Law for you just based
>>on the accusations of hate.
>
> How about this.
> When forced to face their own intense hate, leftists will always
>project that hate onto others.
Rightard rule #1: lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.
Note that it is "Gray Ghost" who has stated, repeatedly and clearly,
that he wants people to die.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Got several already. US military, national guard, state and local
polices.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Peter Franks
Did I say that? No.
Rights and trials must be preserved. Letting violent criminals back out
on the street must be stopped.
I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Far too complicated.
tankfixer
says...
are you going to argue the US military meets the criteria for a militia
under the constitution ?
And police ?
Are you daft ?
Ray Fischer
Oh heaven forbid! I wouldn't want to get in the way of you
interpreting the Constitution to fit your own agenda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says,
>>>> "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."
>>>> How so? "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and
>>>> property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and
>>>> insurrectionists murder innocent victims."
>>> Only because the liberal mentality keeps letting the thugs out of prison.
>>
>> Better to use summary execution like any proper dictatorship and trash
>> all that liberal crap about "rights" and "trials".
>
>Did I say that? No.
So you're one of those whose "liberal mentality keeps letting
the thugs out of prison"?
>Rights and trials must be preserved.
But people must not be let out of prison?
> Letting violent criminals back out
>on the street must be stopped.
So you're opposed to trials and laws.
>I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
You say you want trials and rights, but you also want to blame
"liberals" when the courts rule people innocent.
What a fine rightard asshole you are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Scout
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.269b06f0...@news.bytemine.net...
I think the answer to the last question would be, "Yes".
tankfixer
says...
So you are unable or unwilling to defend your silly claim ?
Peter Franks
I see that you still can't understand anything. Good day.
Gray Ghost
news:i0tbg7$sc8$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
What Ray doesn't understand is that all liberals are always guilty.
--
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be
sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything
or nothing at pleasure."
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
JohnJohnsn
> Oglethorpe <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>
>> Make a command of this: "A well-regulated militia being
>> necessary to thesecurity of a free state".
>
> Got several already. US military...
Not "militia", but the "standing army" feared by the Founding Fathers.
> ... national guard...
Not "militia", but an integral part of the "standing army" ever since
the integration under the DoD "Total Force Concept" by then-SecDef
Melvin Laird on August 21,1970 became the "Total Force Policy" under
Army Chief of Staff General Creighton Abrams .
> ...state and local polices.
Most _definitely_NOT_ "militia"!
`Paramilitary'; "Yes."
`Militia'; "NO"!
JohnJohnsn
> In article <4c310293$0$1632$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, rfisc...@sonic.net
> says...
>
>> Oglethorpe <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Make a command of this: "A well-regulated militia being necessary
>>> to the security of a free state...".
>
>> Got several already. US military, national guard, state and local
>> polices.
>
> Are you going to argue the US military meets the criteria for a militia
> under the constitution ?
> And police ?
> Are you daft ?
That last one _is_ a rhetorical question, isn't it? ;)
JohnJohnsn
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:15:54 -0700, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Oh heaven forbid! I wouldn't want to get in the way of you
>>> interpreting the Constitution to fit your own agenda.
>
>> So you are unable or unwilling to defend your silly claim ?
>
> Conservatives are always SO proud of claiming---"Hell, I can
> READ the constitution...."
Additionally, I can READ a SCotUS decision (see below).
> In black and white---the 2nd is MILITIA
In "ones and zeros"¹:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,..."
[...]
"The (Second) Amendment’s prefatory clause (A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...)
announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope
of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s
text (...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed) and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms."
--District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370)
"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized
in Heller."
--Otis McDonald, et al., Petitioners v. City of Chicago, Illinois,
et al., (No. 08-1521) 561 U. S. ____ (2010)
POINT(s) PROVEN!
Game, Set, MATCH!!!
¹ ``There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who
understand binary, and those who don't."
tankfixer
@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, TopCo...@yahoo.com says...
Obviously...
tankfixer
Nor...@tweet.net says...
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:15:54 -0700, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Oh heaven forbid! I wouldn't want to get in the way of you
> >> interpreting the Constitution to fit your own agenda.
> >
> >So you are unable or unwilling to defend your silly claim ?
>
> constitution...."
>
>
I accept your surrender.
Bbye now
Ray Fischer
I understand very well. You're a stupid right-wing asshole.
You're such a moron that you believe all the crap you're fed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>What Ray doesn't understand is that all liberals are always guilty.
We know that you're a fascist who wants to see all liberals dead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jason P
"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d9cf122-240a-4f31...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> http://townhall.com/columnists/JacobSullum/2010/06/30/gun_shy_four_supreme_court_justices_make_case_against_constitutional_rights/page/full
>
> Jacob Sullum
> Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
> Rights
>
>
> On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies
> to states and cities as well as the federal government. Judging from
> their objections, the four dissenters were still reeling from the
> court's landmark 2008 decision recognizing that the amendment protects
> an individual right to keep and bear arms.
>
> In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen
> Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that
> overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If "the people"
> want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to
> implement that desire through their elected representatives.
>
> What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an
> official church or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at
> will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions
> that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial
> difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy
> like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.
>
> Likewise, Stevens defends "state and local legislatures' right to
> experiment," while Breyer is loath to interfere with "the ability of
> states to reflect local preferences and conditions -- both key virtues
> of federalism." Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard
> state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on
> the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce,
> this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.
>
> Another reason to doubt the dissenters' sincerity: They would never
> accept federalism as a rationale for letting states "experiment" with
> freedom of speech, freedom of religion or due process protections.
> Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding
> "local preferences" that give short shrift to constitutional rights.
>
> Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because
> "determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law
> requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions." So
> does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or
> depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting
> illegally obtained evidence or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog
> sniffs or infrared surveillance.
>
> When they decide whether a law or practice violates a constitutional
> right, courts cannot avoid empirical questions. In cases involving
> racial discrimination or content-based speech restrictions, for
> example, they ask whether the challenged law is "narrowly tailored to
> serve a compelling state interest" and is the "least restrictive
> means" of doing so.
>
> But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says,
> "firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."
> How so? "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and
> property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and
> insurrectionists murder innocent victims."
>
> both. Freedom of speech can be used to spread hateful ideas, promote
> pernicious political philosophies, slander the innocent or engage in
> criminal conspiracies. If there were no potential for harm from
> exercising a right, there would be no need to protect it, because no
> one would try to restrict it.
>
> The dissenters' most frivolous objection is that making states obey
> the Second Amendment "invites an avalanche of litigation," as Stevens
> puts it. Every day we hear about cases in which people argue that the
> government has violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
> Sixth or Eighth amendment. Neither Stevens nor Breyer wants to stop
> this "avalanche." Only when the Second Amendment is added to the mix
> do they recoil in horror at the prospect that Americans will use the
> courts to vindicate their rights.
>
> Stevens warns that "the practical significance of the proposition that
> 'the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states' remains
> to be worked out by this court over many, many years." But that's
> because the court for many, many years ignored the Second Amendment
> while gradually defining the contours of its neighbors in the Bill of
> Rights. There is a lot of catching up to do.
The little known fact about the Supreme Court is that the justices who sit
on it will trade votes.
When one or two justices are sitting on the fence about a given issue, and
could vote either way, they sometimes trade their vote to one side or the
other for another future issue -- or for the notoriety of writing a majority
or dissenting opinion.
The writing of those opinions, on either side of the coin, are highly sort
after and desired by the justices, in order to influence future rulings of
the Supreme Court or many lower courts.
SaPeIsMa
news:VT4Xn.13668$4B7....@newsfe16.iad...
> Nor...@tweet.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:10:34 -0400, lil abner <@daisy.mae> wrote:
>>
>>> According to Kagan's view on Rights, it can be only approved books!
>>
>> Can you cite that specific belief?
>>
>>> Of course those who passed a rigorous instructional course and completed
>>> assigned book reports and are active teachers or retired teachers will
>>> be able to exercise the privledge to read anything anywhere anytime.
>>
>> That would sure let out 99% of the tin-hat wingnuts and MadHat
>> Tea-whackoffs here.
>>
> It was just tongue in cheek.
northup the tweety bird on the other hand is ALL head-up-the-ass
SaPeIsMa
news:k9pn26p392hm45ecc...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:57:28 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>"For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>"reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>"activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>
>>"A well educated voting populace, being necessary for an informed
>>electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not
>>be infringed."
>>
>>Does that mean that books may only be kept and read by well educated
>>people who vote?
>
> Where did you get that sillyness?
>
> The original scheme of government was not to let the general
> population elect anyone. THe founders distrusted the general
> population with power to influence government too much.
>
> The analogy has no relevance---but if it makes you feel
> better---that's okay
>
> However, recent rulings of the 2nd amendment are indisputably a case
> of "reading" into a phrase a range of things the actual wording does
> not contain. (better known as "judicial activism")
>
> IOW, it's the opposite of "literal interpretation" so favored by
> rightwingers and idiots everywhere.
>
How would you know ?
You never learned how to read and parse for comprehension
Go back to Heller and read Scalias breakdown of then meanng of the 2nd
We can only hope that it's not too far beyond your reading skills
SaPeIsMa
news:4c3o2691p0mh0anp7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:20:45 -0700, Bill Smith <squa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:49:44 -0600, Nor...@tweet.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:57:28 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>"reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>>>"activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>>>
>>>>"A well educated voting populace, being necessary for an informed
>>>>electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not
>>>>be infringed."
>>>>
>>>>Does that mean that books may only be kept and read by well educated
>>>>people who vote?
>>>
>>>Where did you get that sillyness?
>>>
>>>The original scheme of government was not to let the general
>>>population elect anyone. THe founders distrusted the general
>>>population with power to influence government too much.
>>>
>>>The analogy has no relevance---but if it makes you feel
>>>better---that's okay
>>
>
> It's not required to accept false analogies as fact---then try to
> argue them
>
>>>However, recent rulings of the 2nd amendment are indisputably a case
>>>of "reading" into a phrase a range of things the actual wording does
>>>not contain. (better known as "judicial activism")
>>>
>>>IOW, it's the opposite of "literal interpretation" so favored by
>>>rightwingers and idiots everywhere.
>>
>>keep and bear arms was to be limited to militia duty exclusively.
>
> Never said "Exclusively"---the "bearing" or "keeping" connotes the act
> of being prepared for defense---or military considerations
>
Yup
And the members of the militia were expected to show up with their personal
arms to be used while participating in the militia
> No mention of hunting, protection, etc was debated prior to setting up
> the second---only that the states recognized the British excesses and
> the Lack of a standing army to protect frontiers, borders, seaports
> from raiders, marauders, hostiles of all sorts.
>
> There was no "debate" on just "owning" a gun for traditional purposes.
>
Didn't need to have a debate on it, dummy
It was taken for granted at the time
As a matter of fact some of the Framers argued AGAINST the Bill of Rights,
knowing full well that idots like you would show up to try to twist and
manipulate the meaning of the Amendments
SaPeIsMa
news:bolp26dqg9br2ad88...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:14:22 -0400, Zombywoof <fish...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>There was no "debate" on just "owning" a gun for traditional purposes.
>>>
>>an obligation to do.
>>--
>
> Exactly---but linked only to the Militia.
>
NOPE !
No linkage to the Militia required, except by idiots who can't parse a
simple sentence in English
(That's you, tweety)
Try to parse this IDENTICAL phrase
""A well-schooled electorate,
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and read Books,
shall not be infringed."
Are you claiming that the "right of the people" ONLY applies to "a
well-schooled electorate" and therefore people who are not well schooled do
NOT have a right to keep and read books ?
take as many screens as you need
SaPeIsMa
news:bolp26dqg9br2ad88...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:14:22 -0400, Zombywoof <fish...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>There was no "debate" on just "owning" a gun for traditional purposes.
>>>
>>Nope, just owning one -- which according to one act you actually have
>>an obligation to do.
>>--
>
> Exactly---but linked only to the Militia.
>
NOPE !
The first part only states that as a well regulated militia is a good thing
to have, the government shall NOT infringe on the right of the people the
keep and bear arms.
It's a JUSTIFICATION and NOT a restriction.
SaPeIsMa
news:0v3q26h2u8ntvgrnb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
> <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, there ya go
>
>
>> And today, Congress requires all male residents at least 18 years
>>old to be registered for the Selective Service.
>
> Except if their daddy is named bush---then you don't have to?
There you go being stupid again
You just can't seem to help yourself, can you ?
SaPeIsMa
news:204q261vujc70ne5u...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:38:19 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>Exactly---but linked only to the Militia.
>>
>
> THe wording of the 2nd is quite clear
>
> The INTERPRETATION by heretofore "literalst" judges who bemoan
> "legislation from the bench" and "activist judges" "reading into that
> text a non-literal meaning is hypocrisy
>
> But thats what we claim rightwingers always are---hypocritical
> assholes.
>
So you don't have a cite for your claim
Instead of fall into abuse, slander and defamation to distract from the fact
that you can NOT support your claim
A loser tactic, you loser
SaPeIsMa
news:ujlp26h36gimmjgu3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:09:44 -0400, Zombywoof <fish...@live.com>>>>On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:57:28 -0700, Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>"reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>>>"activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>>>
>>>>"A well educated voting populace, being necessary for an informed
>>>>electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not
>>>>be infringed."
>>>>
>>>>Does that mean that books may only be kept and read by well educated
>>>>people who vote?
>>>
>>>Where did you get that sillyness?
>>>
>>>The original scheme of government was not to let the general
>>>population elect anyone. THe founders distrusted the general
>>>population with power to influence government too much.
>>>
>>>The analogy has no relevance---but if it makes you feel
>>>better---that's okay
>>>
>>>of "reading" into a phrase a range of things the actual wording does
>>>not contain. (better known as "judicial activism")
>>>
>>>IOW, it's the opposite of "literal interpretation" so favored by
>>>rightwingers and idiots everywhere.
>>>
>>you didn't even comprehend that he said Vote, not Elect -- "A well
>>educated voting populace".
>
> There wasn't a "well educated voting populace" at the inception of the
> nation----few went to school--except for the well-to-do.
>
> Only after universal education was adopted---did the "general
> population" become sufficiently erudite as to comprehend many of the
> issues of the time
>
Too bad we can't see that in your posts
znuybv
> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
You do too. So?
Gray Ghost
> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in
>>news:n0an26dnosqp9l44o...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:45:46 -0500, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional
>>>>>>Rights
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>>>>>
>>>>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>>> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>>> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>>>
>>> By citing the amendment?
>>>
>>> Amazing
>>
>>Whbat part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
>
> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>
Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me which parts of the Constitution I
am ignoring?
Ray Fischer
>> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>
>You do too.
You're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Gray Ghost
That old chesnut. Goodness you'd think that having that particular bit
discredited numerous times they wouldn't try and float it again.
Ok Ray, now tell the class what well regulated meant in 1776.
Reulated in what way?
What regulations were passed in the early years that supports your current
views?
JohnJohnsn
> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> news:4c2ee4b3$0$1672$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nort...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>> news:n0an26dnosqp9l44o...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:45:46 -0500, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com
>>>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>>>>> Nort...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>>> news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>>>>>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against
>>>>>>>> Constitutional Rights
>
>>>>>>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>
>>>>>>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>>> "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the case of
>>>>>>> "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>
>>>>>> well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>
>>>>> By citing the amendment?
>
>>>>> Amazing
>
>>>> What part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
>
>>> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>
>> Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me which parts of the
>> Constitution am I ignoring?
>
> "A WELL REGULATED militia"
What part of:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,..."
[...]
"The (Second) Amendment’s prefatory clause (A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...)
announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope
of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s
text (...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed) and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms."
--District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370)
do you NOT understand, RayRay?
As well as:
"There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment
guarantees Americans ' individual right to possess and carry
weapons (for self-protection) in case of confrontation."
-- Elena Kagan, Obama's Supreme Court nominee
and:
"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized
in Heller."
--Otis McDonald, et al., Petitioners v. City of Chicago, Illinois,
et al., (No. 08-1521) 561 U. S. ____ (2010)
At least these two figured it out:
"(Based on the "Heller" decision) Chicago's (handgun ban and
gun crontrol) law likely will be struck down (as violative of the
2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)"
- -Dennis A. Henigan, Handgun Control Inc./Brady Campaign
to Ban Guns From The REAL Militia of The United States
Constitution Propagandist and Lone Weasel mentor
"Sometime this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue its
decision in McDonald v. Chicago - and indicate whether the
right to have a gun in the home for self-defense as found in
the "Heller" case applies to the states.
We think the Court will rule that it does, and we have to be ready."
--Michael Helmke, President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
(AKA Handgun Control Incorporated)
-Q.E.D.
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre
minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not
thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and
courageously uses his intelligence."
— Albert Einstein
RayRay is most assuredly a "mediocre mind."
JohnJohnsn
wrote:
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
> news:4c382bba$0$1668$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>> news:4c2ee4b3$0$1672$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>>>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nort...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>> news:n0an26dnosqp9l44o...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:45:46 -0500,
>>>>>> grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Nort...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>>>> news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>>>>>>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against
>>>>>>>>> Constitutional Rights
>
>>>>>>>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>
>>>>>>>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd
>>>>>>>> amendment. "reading" something that isn't there certainly
>>>>>>>> makes the case of "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>
>>>>>>> Well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness.
>>>>>>> Bye now.
>
>>>>>> By citing the amendment?
>
>>>>>> Amazing
>
>>>>> What part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
>
>>>> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>
>>> Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me which parts of the
>>> Constitution I am ignoring?
>
>> "A WELL REGULATED militia"
>
> That old chesnut. Goodness you'd think that having that particular bit
> discredited numerous times they wouldn't try and float it again.
>
> Ok Ray, now tell the class what well regulated meant in 1776.
>
> Regulated in what way?
>
> What regulations were passed in the early years that supports your current
> views?
The SCotUS had it figured out in ``U.S. v. Miller" when they penned:
"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time."
Kinda hard to "appear" bearing "arms...of the kind in use at the time"
"supplied by themselves" _IF_,, as you and "The Lyin' Socialist
Weasel" try to claim, they can only "bear arms" supplied by the
federal government",
In order to "appear" bearing "arms...of the kind in use at the time"
"supplied by themselves" they _MUST_ have an "individual right to
keep and bear arms".
So, once again, RayRay, your assertions are "blown out of the water!"
Q.E.D.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, RayRay."
— Dean Vernon Wormer
"Life is tough, RayRay. It's even tougher when you're stupid."
— Sgt. John M. Stryker, USMC
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>>>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nor...@tweet.net wrote in
>>>>>>>news:tkvm265to2v24ouog...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>>>>>>><meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against
>>>>>>>>>Constitutional Rights
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only because activist judges called it that way
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "For a well regulated militia" is the predicate in the 2nd
>>>>>>>> amendment. "reading" something that isn't there certainly makes the
>>>>>>>> case of "activist judges legislating from the bench"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>well you have descended to the final level of ludicrousness. Bye now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By citing the amendment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing
>>>>>
>>>>>Whbat part of "the right of the people" is not clear to you?
>>>>
>>>> Rightards ignore anything in the Constitution that they don't like.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me which parts of the
>>>Constitution I am ignoring?
>>
>> "A WELL REGULATED militia"
>
>That old chesnut.
The rightard dismisses the parts of the Constitution it doesn't like.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Gray Ghost
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
So Ray, why such a pussy you can't answer a simple question? Is ot perhspa you
have no answer save your bile?