Results 21 to 30 of 296
-
06-26-2008 #21
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 609
Originally Posted by El Nino
ceci n'est pas une signature.
-
06-26-2008 #22
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
If you want teachers to carry concealed firearms, then you never had the idiots I had for teachers.
Even though the right of the “people” (which needn’t, until today, be read as individuals) to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, very little is said in today’s decision about regulation. The first amendment has always been read as giving individuals as well as the press the right to speech. Yet, being an in force constitutional amendment has not precluded speech from regulation. There are venues where you can’t say George Carlin’s seven words without paying an exorbitant fine. You can be sued for defamation. You can be fined for false advertising. It has yet to be worked out what sort of regulations are justified by this latest supreme court deconstruction of a constitutional amendment that had been well understood for seventy years.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
06-26-2008 #23
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 609
Trust trish to supply the most thoughtful, informed and erudite comment on this matter.
ceci n'est pas une signature.
-
06-26-2008 #24
-
06-26-2008 #25
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 609
No, I'm not sucking up to her. I just happen to think that trish, along with Peggy Gee, is one of the most intelligent and informed posters in this forum. Just my humble opinion which, according to the first amendment, I am entitled to utter.
ceci n'est pas une signature.
-
06-26-2008 #26
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12
Originally Posted by scroller
Scalia explains clearly that the prefatory clause(aka "well regulated militia") is not a limitation, but rather an explanation of the second, operative clause (aka "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")
Scalia's majority opinion:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re-
phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”...... other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose...... Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.”...... But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
-
06-26-2008 #27
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 950
Yeah, but Antonin Scalia is a right-wing torture-crazy death-penalty-loving gay-bashing reactionary twat.
-
06-27-2008 #28
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
"well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the times that the constitution was written, the definition of "regulated" meant "well trained" or "well drilled".
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
06-27-2008 #29
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12
Originally Posted by trish
You seriously need to read the Federalist papers, specifically #46, where the reason for, and purpose of, 2nd amendment was discussed in detail.Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter-
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” .... Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.”....Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”.....Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-
us, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-
terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
.... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search..... the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
-
06-27-2008 #30
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 950
'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '
So, like, bazookas?