Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
BTW, this article says it was a Beretta pistol. I don't know from pistols, all I know is Beretta semi-automatic. Do you think he had a pistol? or that the writer got it wrong?
It would be a tremedous ruling in favor of our rights at a Federal level. I'm wondering though, I had heard that this still enables individual states to maintain such constraints on firearms as they see fit, to the point of yet again infringing upon our rights. I wonder exactly how far they can go at a state level say, in a place like Californistan?
Even libertarians can do well on psychotropic medicine. However, it appears you happen to be debating one that got a placebo.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Why do you have such a hard time with the word bear?
Main Entry: bear
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bore /'bOr, 'bor/; borne
/'bOrn, 'born/; also born /'born/;
bear·ing
Etymology: Middle English beren to carry, bring forth,
from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran
to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date: before 12th century
For one thing, the people in the states retain the rights, not the state itself. Secondly, if the state wants to remain as part of the Republic, it must also follow the guidelines set forth in the Constitution. By arguing that "States" have the right to infringe on firearms ownership, then the states could also say, ban printing presses and conduct door to door searches or waive trial by jury. Californistan, as you call it, is what happens when communism takes over.
The pistol that was used was a Berretta 92, a 9MM. The military calls it the M9. The government adopted it after the Colt 1911A1 .45.
One of the points that was made during the proceedings was that he used the very pistol that the government or a militia would use.
(But that might just make too much sense, I reckon. . . )
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Mr. Ashcroft told prosecutors.
How do they balance "shall not be infringed", and why don't they want the Supremes to hear it?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Coming next week, a policy change.
It is also in line with FreeRepublic's opinion (the other day someone defined Freepers to a newbie: all Freepers agree on two things--1) the Clintons are as low as you can get and still be human and 2) leave my guns alone. Freepers agree on little else as a group).
Kind of like the First Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent free speech by unfit persons within 60 days of an election or to restrict the possession of a printing press to those who are particularly suited to misuse.
For freedom,
Locke
More empty talk. Just what I'm coming to expect from this administration.
We note further that military weapons in 2002 include tanks, APCs, C-4, F-16s, B-2s, aircraft carriers, etc. Put that in the Miller decision and see what the USSC actually meant.
And even a sawed-off shotgun could be useful militarily, in fighting a guerilla war. But in 1939, we weren't fighting one (officially, anyway).
For freedom,
Locke
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
Here's a more appropriate headline...
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.