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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (239202)3/17/2002 10:26:11 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
I did consider the "Whole Amendment." The phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" does not modify the second part, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's an unnecessary phrase, but if you insist, then you are in the militia like the rest of us.

This argument is a big time-waster. It's been gone over again and again, but the answer is always the same. Unless you people want to declare that "the people" does not mean the PEOPLE. In that case, shut up. You just lost the first, the fourth, the ninth, the tenth, and the fourteenth amendments too.



To: Charles Tutt who wrote (239202)3/17/2002 11:04:15 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I will say this, there is a difference of opinion. The 9th Circuit Court contends "the people" refers to the state militia and not the individual. However in US v. Emerson the 5th Circuit Court disagreed and plainly said it is an individual right. Funny, "the people" means the individual in ALL the other Amendments, there is no dispute there.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News