|
|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) But according to the Constitution, it is the Court that is empowered to interpret the law. (...) I've had a small and far-too-late epiphany on this matter, or at least on how to articulate my feelings about it, so I think I might finally have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, the original Presidential Oath of Office, according to the Constitution, is: I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Ah, the dangers of abridged source material. I found a more extensive discussion of that case at: (URL) appears that the case involved due process and the right to use one's property (in this case, residence) as one sees fit, as is spelled out (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, the NRA can hardly be taken as a bastion of objective reporting, so it's difficult to accept its pronouncements at face value. One could point out, for example, the NRA has perpetuated the lie that the 2nd Amendment says anything at all (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) What if a society is mature enough to decide that guns have no place in the community? Is that society no longer "free"? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) I hope for a good solid citation -- one that you would accept if our stances were reversed, not just some Newsweek opinion. The NRA tells us that those are made up by evil liberal-agendad politicians like Moynihan. Kleck and Kates (IIRC) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Um, I was kind of playing, but what do you mean? I think the 2nd is pretty clear on the matter. The issue of how the Supreme Court has allowed the curtailing of our constitutional rights is interesting, but I'm not sure that I'm ready to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, there is stuff that is covered by the federal government to make trade and travel amongst the many states more or less an easy thing -- one of the true limited purposes of the U.S. federal govt. I have no problems with any of that. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) The Federal system means that any precedent set in another state may affect our own laws--certainly, they will when we drive through, or relocate to, said state, and most American families are spread through many states. So I'd argue that it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
