Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lazamataz
Since you concede that one mans rights are bracketed by the next mans rights, we need to define arms more specifically, especially since the nature of arms have changed.

Since you concede that the nature of arms have changed since 1791, we need to pass a new constitutional amendment in order to define arms more specifically.

40 posted on 04/18/2002 10:44:35 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: inquest
Since you concede that the nature of arms have changed since 1791, we need to pass a new constitutional amendment in order to define arms more specifically.

Maybe, or maybe we can simply use the logic and common sense of the inherent bracketing of rights as I have described them. However, if you were interested in a more precise amendement, I would recommend you use my discrimination arguments above.

The discrimination-test will allow for individual possession of laser, plasma, and other directed-energy small arms that the present interpretation of the amendment may not allow. The courts are likely -- at present -- to deny possession of laser pistols to the common man, and I find this to be an abhorrant future probability.

When lasers are outlawed, only Klingons will have lasers.

45 posted on 04/18/2002 10:48:36 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson