SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jttmab who wrote (5614)8/1/2001 2:26:48 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 93284
 
But given that decision on it's face, I think you come to a reasonable conclusion that the Court in 1939 would have called the 2nd a collection right vs. an individual right.

No I do not come to that conclusion at all. Miller dealt with the idea of weapons that had a reasonable militia use but not who had a right to use those weapons that did have such a reasonable use. Also even if it was a right for the militia (and if it was intended as such it would have been easy for the writers of the constitution to say so) the militia consists of able bodied adult male non felons, and the right would be for them to have arms not for an organization to own arms at let militia members use them when fighting or drilling. The amendments in the bill of rights deal with individual rights not collective rights. In other areas of the constitution if the right is a right of a state the constitution directly says so.

I've tried to examine the references and the logic of US vs. Miller and there isn't anything that I can find
that indicates that they got to that decision without thought or without a solid supporting argument.


I never said that it was without thought or even without supporting argument. It has however now well based on the actual constitution.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext