Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
Roscoe, Mojave, same troll...
Still active.
The United States will outlive your meaningless life and impotent hatred of its Constitution.
You had a question?
They are not listed in order of importance, and all are important.
But the most important Amendment is the one that has taken the biggest beating to the point where it almost doesn't exist. I refer, of course, to the 10th Amendment.
Great idea! Should the cook "interpret" the meaning of "ham and eggs?"
Mark
Sure, I was wondering why you scuttled off again after all of yours were answered. You giving it up?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664835/replies?c=112
Are you admitting that:
THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
Address:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Go peddle your commie trash elsewhere troll.
That, and at some point, I'd like Art 6 para 2 re-read to Congress in such a way that they come to understand it. Maybe if we explained it to them as one would with a child of 6. Complete with warnings of spankings or other dire consequences for ignoring it.
The Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under the Bush administration, put out a memo saying they believed the second amendment secures an individual right.
So?
Some future Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under some liberal President can put out a memo saying it doesn't. The Attorney General enforces the law -- he doesn't make it or interpret it.
No. There wasn't anything to "belief" about it. The document clearly states that a review of history, original intent, and linguistic structure, all support the view that it protects an individual Right.
Of course, if you'd actually read it, you'd know that.
What would keep a future administration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and linguistic structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation.
No. There wasn't anything to "belief" about it. The document clearly states that a review of history, original intent, and linguistic structure, all support the view that it protects an individual Right.
Of course, if you'd actually read it, you'd know that.
What would keep a future adminstration from coming up with their own documentation to the contrary would be the history, original intent, and liguisticu structure of the Second Amendment and the supporting documentation.
All they'd have to do is simply copy the text from Judge Reinhardt's 70-page opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer.
So?
Some future Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, under some liberal President can put out a memo saying it doesn't. The Attorney General enforces the law -- he doesn't make it or interpret it.
You ARE aware that some future liberal Presidency can have their Justice Department write their own interpretation. What then, tpaine?
Then bobbie, - depending on how you people ~act~ upon your "interpretations", it may be time [as Claire Wolfe put it] to straighten you collectivists out.
You're saying that you believe the Executive Branch of the federal government when they tell you what your rights are when it comes to arms?
Don't hype me bob. -- The facts noted in that report are valid, regardless of who 'tells' them.
You simply can not refute those facts, can you?
Two bits you ignore those facts, and run away from the issue again.
-- What ever happened to your big boast a few weeks ago to 'settle this once and for all'?
Which, according to the DoJ's own research was incorrectly decided.
Nice try.
So the DOJ overturned the 9th Circuit?
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.Then ask the following questions:
Please don't make me tell you again. You know the counter arguments as well as your own biased Brady Bunch nonsense.
Hmmmmm. I seem to recall that decision of the 9th Circuit held.
But even if the second amendment protected an individual RKBA, it would still only apply to federal laws. Silveira v. Lockyer concerned a California law, not a federal one. The decision would stand.
Unless you don't believe in the concept of federalism.
Or are you still pushing the same old BS that States aren't subject to Constitutional restrictions and could bring back slavery if the legislature voted to?
What you are pushing isn't Federalism. It's the old Confederation standard that proved unworkable as some States decided it would be fun to restrict the "unalienable Rights of Man" from certain classes of citizen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.