Prev: finder compress
Next: CEO calls iPad "a game changer"
From: News on 19 Feb 2010 09:33
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <mM-dnVzAZYvvXODWnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <n-mdnaTf7ovBIODWnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>,
>> russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <YLmdnQo8wODpJeDWnZ2dnUVZ_j6gnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
>>> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <dfmanno-CEBA62.16530018022010(a)news.albasani.net>,
>>>> "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <michelle-0C3670.10385718022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The NRA strongly supports the 2nd amendment: "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."
>>>>> The NRA strongly supports the _second half_ of the Second Amendment. It
>>>>> appears to believe that the first half was written in invisible ink.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And I'm an NRA member, too.)
>>>> I have always found it moderately amusing that a strict
>>>> constructionist reading of the constitution would indicate that only the
>>>> Yahoo military wannabees in Utah and Idaho would qualify. (g
>>> Well, a bad (flawed) strict constructionist reading. The same sort of
>>> reading
>>> which would tell you the First Amendment only supports the "right of the
>>> people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress
>>> for a redress of grievances" -- that is, freedom of assembly only
>>> applies when petitioning Congress.
>>>
>> Which of course it never did since all those "or"s included in the
>> actual text. It specifically listed a whole bunch of things ONE of which
>> (added with an and, BTW) was redressing grievances.
>
> Which didn't stop the Cruikshank court from badly misinterpreting it.
>
>> The second, specifically brings out the militia angle as a
>> requirement. No ors or ands there.
>
> There is no wording indicating that the "militia angle" is a requirement
> for the right to keep and bear arms. It's a requirement for the
> "security of a free state".


Tell it to the activist jurists and their ringleader 'Ah-lee-toe'.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: finder compress
Next: CEO calls iPad "a game changer"