| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ms My Rights" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2006 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:28:57 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599A997.CEF25745@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"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."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows
there's no need for arms rights.
Not because that would be making the faulty assertion that the right
depends
on the militia. Further we do still have such a militia. See 10USC311 for
some of the details on that.
What unit are you in and when was the last time your unit got together to
train?
The Militia of the United States, and there is no unit wide training
standard mandated by Congress.
As structured where people were to report, when called, bearing their
own
arms that militia couldn't function on its own without the right of
the
people to have those arms. That is the reason that right is protected
from the actions of the central government.
But not from state governments.
Only until the 14th is incorporated by SCOTUS. Since somehow they managed
to
negate the whole 14th Amendment until they decide it applies.
What ever you say. Get back to us on that.
The facts wont change no matter how long you wait.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:48:28 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"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."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows
there's no need for arms rights.
Not because that would be making the faulty assertion that the right
depends
on the militia. Further we do still have such a militia. See 10USC311 for
some of the details on that.
What unit are you in and when was the last time your unit got together to
train?
The Militia of the United States, and there is no unit wide training
standard mandated by Congress.
Ah, heh heh, "neutered by neglect" as R Sweeney said last month. THANKS!
As structured where people were to report, when called, bearing their
own
arms that militia couldn't function on its own without the right of
the
people to have those arms. That is the reason that right is protected
from the actions of the central government.
But not from state governments.
Only until the 14th is incorporated by SCOTUS. Since somehow they managed
to
negate the whole 14th Amendment until they decide it applies.
What ever you say. Get back to us on that.
The facts wont change no matter how long you wait.
And the fact is, the militia is neutered by neglect. Zip. Nada.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
28 Dec 2006 11:19:09 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45920B90.8A213311@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am I?
As structured where people were to report, when called, bearing their
own arms that militia couldn't function on its own without the right
of the people to have those arms. That is the reason that right is
protected from the actions of the central government.
But not from state governments.
Your strawman, you feed him. I never claimed it was....at least by the
Second Amendment. It is protected from state action by the state
constitutions and statutes and the USSC.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:55:13 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
As structured where people were to report, when called, bearing their
own arms that militia couldn't function on its own without the right
of the people to have those arms. That is the reason that right is
protected from the actions of the central government.
But not from state governments.
Your strawman, you feed him. I never claimed it was....at least by the
Second Amendment. It is protected from state action by the state
constitutions and statutes and the USSC.
What strawman?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:17:14 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599AD71.A0184E21@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 09:17:55 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:uoimh.38581$3v6.9419@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599AD71.A0184E21@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted
by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am
I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The Constitution does not grant any rights.
The Constitution protects rights. And the 2nd protects the individual right
to bear arms from federal infringement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:42:56 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The right is not uncondititional. That's what the amendment says.
From Miller
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness
of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It
must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 06:56:08 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45A1BDC0.58E91B03@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted
by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am
I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The right is not uncondititional. That's what the amendment says.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
09 Jan 2007 10:45:56 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in
news:JMBoh.29531$%e7.29185@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45A1BDC0.58E91B03@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are in the
amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease
to exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then,
it follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is
granted by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that
ignorant, am I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The right is not uncondititional. That's what the amendment says.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
He will dodge that question by replying that it is the only place in the
Constitution that mentions arms.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Jan 2007 10:13:48 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45A1BDC0.58E91B03@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is granted
by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant, am
I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The right is not uncondititional. That's what the amendment says.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
As determined by the need for a militia.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Jan 2007 05:50:29 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45AAFF7C.930CA215@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45A1BDC0.58E91B03@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease
to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is
granted
by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant,
am
I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The right is not uncondititional. That's what the amendment says.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
As determined by the need for a militia.
Is that a "yes" or a "no"? This is not a difficult
question ... either the second amendment grants
the right to keep and bear arms or it does not.
Why are you avoiding a straight answer to this
question? First, answer the question. If you
choose to explain your rationale afterward, feel
free to do so ... but please first answer the
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
20 Jan 2007 10:11:29 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45AAFF7C.930CA215@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45A1BDC0.58E91B03@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease
to
exist.
Bingo. And if we no longer have a militia like they had then, it
follows there's no need for arms rights.
Do you honestly think that the right to keep and bear arms is
granted
by
the Second Amendment? I am not dealing with someone that ignorant,
am
I?
It's mentioned somewhere else?
Why don't you just answer the question.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
The right is not uncondititional. That's what the amendment says.
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
As determined by the need for a militia.
Is that a "yes" or a "no"? This is not a difficult
question ... either the second amendment grants
the right to keep and bear arms or it does not.
Why are you avoiding a straight answer to this
question? First, answer the question. If you
choose to explain your rationale afterward, feel
free to do so ... but please first answer the
question.
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to understand?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
21 Jan 2007 07:35:18 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Jan 2007 09:30:30 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Jan 2007 07:15:34 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Jan 2007 10:39:59 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
28 Jan 2007 07:44:54 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
28 Jan 2007 10:52:50 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message news:eN1vh.2746$ch1.1468@bigfe9...
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
He never answers anything. He just asks redundant questions.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
30 Jan 2007 09:56:23 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
31 Jan 2007 07:28:57 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
04 Feb 2007 03:18:21 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Feb 2007 10:56:33 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in news:jM%xh.1054$%e3.1003@bigfe9:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that
so hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
Your pasted information did not answer the
question. Why are you avoiding this quesion?
He points to a 9th district case....Silviera. Even the 9th does not
agree within itself much less its disagreement with the 5th circuit.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
06 Feb 2007 11:33:17 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so
hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
Your pasted information did not answer the
question. Why are you avoiding this quesion?
WHy do you keep deleting it?
Here it is for the THIRD time:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Feb 2007 07:43:07 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C9649D.9E84F8BF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so
hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
Your pasted information did not answer the
question. Why are you avoiding this quesion?
WHy do you keep deleting it?
Because it doesn't answer the question.
Here it is for the THIRD time:
Apparently you need multiple choice
questions. So here goes ....
Do you believe the second amendment grants
the right to keep and bear arms, either individually
or collectively?
A - Yes.
B - No.
You are more than welcome to expand on your
answer ... once you provide one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
09 Feb 2007 10:50:15 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C9649D.9E84F8BF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so
hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
Your pasted information did not answer the
question. Why are you avoiding this quesion?
WHy do you keep deleting it?
Because it doesn't answer the question.
Here it is for the THIRD time:
Apparently you need multiple choice
questions. So here goes ....
Apparently you're too stupid to read this. I'll paste it in more slowly this
time:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
Get someone in the next trailer to help you with the big words...
Do you believe the second amendment grants
the right to keep and bear arms, either individually
or collectively?
A - Yes.
B - No.
You are more than welcome to expand on your
answer ... once you provide one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Feb 2007 08:19:21 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45CD4F06.A787D44A@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C9649D.9E84F8BF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that
so
hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
Your pasted information did not answer the
question. Why are you avoiding this quesion?
WHy do you keep deleting it?
Because it doesn't answer the question.
Here it is for the THIRD time:
Apparently you need multiple choice
questions. So here goes ....
Apparently you're too stupid to read this. I'll paste it in more slowly
this
time:
<snipped another non-answer>
Do you believe the second amendment grants
the right to keep and bear arms, either individually
or collectively?
A - Yes.
B - No.
Here's another chance. A or B?
You are more than welcome to expand on your
answer ... once you provide one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Feb 2007 10:09:28 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45CD4F06.A787D44A@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C9649D.9E84F8BF@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that
so
hard
to
understand?
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Individually or collectively?
Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.
Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?
Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?
heh heh heh
<snipped non-answer>
Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?
Answer pasted back in
Your pasted information did not answer the
question. Why are you avoiding this quesion?
WHy do you keep deleting it?
Because it doesn't answer the question.
Here it is for the THIRD time:
Apparently you need multiple choice
questions. So here goes ....
Apparently you're too stupid to read this. I'll paste it in more slowly
this
time:
<snipped another non-answer>
Do you believe the second amendment grants
the right to keep and bear arms, either individually
or collectively?
A - Yes.
B - No.
Here's another chance. A or B?
Answer pasted back in (this time I'll double space since pasting in slowly didn't
seem to help you):
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
You are more than welcome to expand on your
answer ... once you provide one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 07:07:55 AM |
|
|
On Feb 13, 11:09 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
[snip]
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.
[snip]
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
[snip]
So, basically, they only ruled upon the 2nd amendment and didn't
decide
whether, outside of the 2nd amendment, there was a RKBA. Since
the 2nd implicitly acknowledges that such a right already exists, my
basic point still stands. Apart from the 2nd, there is a RKBA of
some sort, and that the expression in the 2nd "the right" in the
second presumes that right and attempts to protect it in a narrow
circumstance which your cite addresses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 09:46:23 AM |
|
|
"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 13, 11:09 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
[snip]
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment
right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain
effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual
right to own or possess weapons.
[snip]
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and
its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d
98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which
provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment.
[snip]
So, basically, they only ruled upon the 2nd amendment and didn't
decide
whether, outside of the 2nd amendment, there was a RKBA. Since
the 2nd implicitly acknowledges that such a right already exists, my
basic point still stands. Apart from the 2nd, there is a RKBA of
some sort, and that the expression in the 2nd "the right" in the
second presumes that right and attempts to protect it in a narrow
circumstance which your cite addresses.
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That has
nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 12:40:23 PM |
|
|
On Feb 14, 10:46 am, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 13, 11:09 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
[snip]
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment
right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain
effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual
right to own or possess weapons.
[snip]
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and
its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d
98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which
provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment.
[snip]
So, basically, they only ruled upon the 2nd amendment and didn't decide
whether, outside of the 2nd amendment, there was a RKBA. Since
the 2nd implicitly acknowledges that such a right already exists, my
basic point still stands. Apart from the 2nd, there is a RKBA of
some sort, and that the expression in the 2nd "the right" in the
second presumes that right and attempts to protect it in a narrow
circumstance which your cite addresses.
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That has
nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Yup. And the 2nd make specific reference to "the right". It is
a
mistake to presume that the 2nd, or really any, amendment some
how limits any other individual rights.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
