Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:35:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > It says "the security of a free state", not "the maintaining of a free state
> > from internal tyrants" or even "securing a free state". It's a long reach
> > to place your interpretation on the law as written.
>
> Yes, but Mike's interpretation is supported by a thousand documents from the
> time. Why are you folks arguing this? If you don't want guns in America,
> change the constitution (if we let you :-). But what it means is really clear.
On a relatined point, has this ever been overturned:
If you scroll down to "THESECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/second.asp
You'll find:
==+==
"Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice
more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding
the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore,
twice -- in 1965 and 1990 -- the Supreme Court has held that the term
"well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard."
==+==
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
