| October 7th, 2005 03:09 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
The fact is that the republican party has a mmandate from the voters of the country.
The only mandate going on in the White House is with Jeff Gannon/ Guckert. . .LOL
quote:
Never has there been more governors,mayors,council seats,state senators,state reps,federal senators and reps that are republican.
Never before have there been so many Republicans under indictments, convictions, ethics investigations
ie Governor Taft is now the first Ohio Governor to be convicted of a crime in state history.
Conn Gov. John Rowland resigning rather than face impeachment procedings
Tom Delay speaker of the house muliple ethics admonitions before Ronnie Earle or Bush were in power. Currently indicted for money laundering.
Jack Abramoff republican lobbyist involved in illegal financing for congressmen and murder for hire among other salacious activities.
Bill Frist Senate majority leader, under investigation for insider trading, refusing to divest his holdings from his family business that profited from legislation that he wrote.
Karl Rove, republican strategist, involved in the treasonous outing of a covert CIA operative. 22 indictments are pending and should be released within a week. Good luck claiming that U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald's indictments are partisan!
quote:
The nation has spoken rather loudly on this subject.
I think it's speaking even louder with Bush's 38-42% approval rating.
quote:
I think it's very obvious why the democrats are loosing,and loosing big..It's called liberalism.
This is absurd! The Dems lose races because the spend too much time trying to be moderates/ Republican Lite. There is no opposition party if you are trying to emulate your opponent. The liberal fringes of the party are not writing the platforms, it's the DLC that creates them. Both parties take oodles of corporate money and ignore the average person's needs.
quote:
Now it's solidly in republican hands. Why?
Tom Delay's illegal redistricting 8 years early in Texas caused 5 house seats to turn over in Texas. Private corporations that own voting machines whose accuracy can't be verified by a paper trail. Diebold makes ATM's that kick out a receipt when you take out money but doing your most important duty as a citizen, voting, Diebold voting machines can not give you a paper receipt to show how you voted. Give me a break! Delay and Hastert fought tooth and nail any legislation that mandated that the machines have a paper trail. I wonder why?
quote:
Liberals are pushing a secular anti-God,anything goes agenda
Liberals in this country have no power. The only people successfully pushing any agenda in this country are Evangelical Christians. Faith based initiatives (provided you are of the right faith) are funded so that only certain types of faiths can receive funds. Evangelical Christians are attacking principles of science. Evolution is being challanged so much so that certain school districts are not allowed to teach it. Stem cell research is being challanged and de-funded all at the behest of Evangelical Christians. This country used to lead the way in science and technology, the co-mingling of religion and science will only continue to erode leadership that we have had in this area. It's ironic that the current Republican leadership attacks Darwin's views on Evolution while embracing his views of natural selection/ survival of the fittest.
You assume that no people of faith support the left or Democrats. . .this is huge generalization and is not supported by the facts.
quote:
Just ask that moran Kerry!
I love your choice of words to mis-spell!
quote:
dems have to remove themselves from the fringe elements that are dictating the direction of their party. Howard Fucking Dean?!?!?! Are you kidding me! Embracing idiots like Cindy Sheehan has not helped their cause either.
How is Howard Dean a part of a fringe element? He is a fiscally conservative Democrat, a doctor who has first hand knowledge of the healthcare system in this country. Is he fringe because he lets himself speak with emotion. You prefer the dull neutral clones that don't show any emotion when they are elicting your vote (both parties have 'em. You can't have an opposition party if your candidate doesn't verbally oppose them.
Why is Cindy Sheehan an idiot? Does she have less of a right to exert her right to free speech because it opposes the President's foreign policy that resulted in her son's death?
MM
|
| October 7th, 2005 03:34 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
JerryT wrote:
I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that judicial activism, relatively speaking, is not in existent and in excess.
This self-serving interpretation, of course, is no different than what attorneys do when advancing their arguments on behalf of their clients.
I don't see much evidence of it being in excess, relatively speaking. And I know that to the extent is it practiced, it is not lopsided to one idealogy or polticial belief. That won't stop any idiot from saying different, but there it is.....
Its different with attorneys, much different, and our adversarial system of dispute resolution demands that it be.
Welcome to the board. |
| October 7th, 2005 05:25 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Ahhh....good ole Option C. I was hoping Riffy would rush in with some antedated Option D Clinton material, but you proved up the point nicely.
sirmoonie- I really didn't feel that your multiple choice test was worth anything since it was based upon a silly reading of the second amendment. It is not a "liberal" interpretation of the second amendment to find the right to bear arms in it. Either the right is there or it isn't. It reads (caps my emphasis):
[Right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED] A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, I don't care what Burger said. To anybody who can read, the language of the amendment makes it CLEAR the people had the right to KEEP KEEP KEEP and BEAR arms. Period. End of story. That is not liberal interpretation of the document. Its the actual text, which to this point hasn't been cited.
|
| October 7th, 2005 06:00 PM |
|
|
| JerryT |
Yours is a historical interpretation The_Good. But a correct one. At that time that was written, it was meant to give every citizen the right to bear arms -- because, if need be, a militia could be required to be formed under hasty circumstances and by persons not affiliated with the state or federal government. It was a measure done out of practicaility. It is very clear what it says. It gives the reason why an armed citizenry is necessary and then states that because of such necessity, the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not make that right contingent on the need for a militia. The only logical argument in opposition is that the need for militias is no longer an issue. While true now, it cannot be said that it will most certainly be true at all times. Not to mention, the armed American public served as the single greatest deterrent to Soviet invasion during the cold war. They realized that even if they defeated our military, the subjugation of the American people, absent nuclear weapons, would be impossible. |
| October 7th, 2005 08:20 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
This is absurd! The Dems lose races because the spend too much time trying to be moderates/ Republican Lite. There is no opposition party if you are trying to emulate your opponent. The liberal fringes of the party are not writing the platforms, it's the DLC that creates them. Both parties take oodles of corporate money and ignore the average person's needs.
How is Howard Dean a part of a fringe element? He is a fiscally conservative Democrat, a doctor who has first hand knowledge of the healthcare system in this country. Is he fringe because he lets himself speak with emotion. You prefer the dull neutral clones that don't show any emotion when they are elicting your vote (both parties have 'em. You can't have an opposition party if your candidate doesn't verbally oppose them.
Why is Cindy Sheehan an idiot? Does she have less of a right to exert her right to free speech because it opposes the President's foreign policy that resulted in her son's death?
MM
monkey man are you trying to tell me that the democratic party does not embrace the left leaning liberals in this country? Really?
So let me ask you a question. What do you think about the ruling of that liberal judge that sided with the ACLU regarding the release of more photos from Abu Graibe? The Pentagon,the White House,and all the generals on the ground in Iraq stated that it would be a horrible idea,and would certainly lead to more American deaths.Remember the bogus koran story that Issikoff wrote in Newsweek? We know for FACT that that article resulted in the death of at least 15 people! The article was wrong,and based on bullshit.
The ONLY reason why the ACLU want these pictures released is because it will reflect badly on Bush's war effort. That's it. There is no other reasonable answer. They care more for their own agenda than they do for the lives of the military men and women on the ground inside Iraq. Don't give me some bullshit argument about freedom of the press or any of that horseshit. It won't wash. We had freedom of the press during WWII as well,but the press was not trying to destroy the president at the time. They are now. Back then the old saying was "loose lips sink ships". Now days anything goes so long as it makes Bush look bad. If you don't see the blatant slant on the coverage you're looking at it with partisan blinders on.
As for Howard Dean all I'll say about him is that if you don't consider that loud mouthed bastard fringe then that says more about the democrat party than anything I could post. The guy is a joke. Bottom line I wouldn't trust national security to the democtrats ever as long as a guy like Dean is the DNC Chair. Period. The dems won't even contemplate that we are in the midst of WWIII. We are,and if the dems have control we will try to apease and negotiate with the useless UN and all the other lib suspects,including the terrorists themselves. I would suggest that you read some Stephen Emerson on the subject of the Islamist ultimate goal. Scary shit for sure,and I want a party that goes after them HARD. If the UN won't get behind that then fuck em.
Cindy Sheehan. Sure she is free to say whatever she wants. So am I. She is a fucking kook! This dumb bitch blew the sympathy card right off the table when she called the terrorists that killed her own son "freedom fighters"!! The lady is whacked! She also said that the USA is "never worth fighting or dying for". She called New Orleans "Occupied New Orleans" after Katrina hit. Our military was down there trying to fix what the corrupt and inept La. goverment could not do own their own. She is nothing more than a media whore,and everyone knows it. Even her own family has come out against her insane rhetoric. Democrats? They loved her until they finally figured out that she was making them look bad. They quickly pulled back from endorsing her anymore. Good for them. One problem. They already showed their true colors by supporting her in the first place. They NEVER NEVER NEVER showed any support for the hundreds of military mothers and fathers that came out after her and slammed her for shiting on the troops. Funny. Neither did the media. If it wasn't about Cindy Sheehan they did not bother to report it! Why?
Look I have many problems with Bush. I am not particularly happy with his fiscal record. However,until I hear a democrat come out and say,"I will track these bastards down and kill them!" I will never vote for a democrat. That is not likely to happen. Read up on Whabbism and it's worldwide goal. Here's a good start-www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16252
My only problem with the democrats is that they are ignoring the problem of wordwide Islamic Terror,and since all they ever do is bash Bush while NEVER EVER offering another plan has me firmly planted in the republican party for the forseeable future.
Riffy |
| October 7th, 2005 10:24 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I'm in the same boat. I'm not happy with certain Bush admin actions but what's the fuckin' alternative? Goofball Dems? No thanks. |
| October 8th, 2005 01:02 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
the good wrote:
sirmoonie- I really didn't feel that your multiple choice test was worth anything since it was based upon a silly reading of the second amendment. It is not a "liberal" interpretation of the second amendment to find the right to bear arms in it. Either the right is there or it isn't. It reads (caps my emphasis):
[Right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED] A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, I don't care what Burger said. To anybody who can read, the language of the amendment makes it CLEAR the people had the right to KEEP KEEP KEEP and BEAR arms. Period. End of story. That is not liberal interpretation of the document. Its the actual text, which to this point hasn't been cited.
Jesus motherfucking Christ! Thats like never before contemplated option E - The Earth Am Flat.
|
| October 8th, 2005 01:43 AM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
is "the good".....feej? |
| October 8th, 2005 02:01 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
is "the good".....feej?
WTF? The Feej is a very smart man.
We are still WAY out to lunch on The Good. Matter of fact, we are still out to lunch on you Starbie. Say something smart. Like all American and with all the commas and shit in the right places. |
| October 8th, 2005 02:32 AM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
quote:
Moonie spouted:
"Matter of fact, we are still out to lunch on you Starbie."
have you been talking to my wife??
quote:
"Say something smart. Like all American and with all the commas and shit in the right places."
don henly wears women's underwear.
|
| October 8th, 2005 02:46 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
have you been talking to my wife??
don henly wears women's underwear.
The Eagles suck, man. I'd like to use my second amendment rights on people who like Eagles music. I'd be within my rights. |
| October 8th, 2005 03:02 AM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
moonie, i was going to ask you. as a lconsummate legal professional and an avid hun beater, what do you think of this new harriet tubman chick?
is she trouble? is the going to overturn dwayne vs wade?
[Edited by Starbuck] |
| October 8th, 2005 03:21 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
the good wrote:
It is not a "liberal" interpretation of the second amendment to find the right to bear arms in it. Either the right is there or it isn't. It reads (caps my emphasis):
[Right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED] A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, I don't care what Burger said. To anybody who can read, the language of the amendment makes it CLEAR the people had the right to KEEP KEEP KEEP and BEAR arms. Period. End of story. That is not liberal interpretation of the document. Its the actual text, which to this point hasn't been cited.
you seem to be referring to my post there and making the classic error of interpretation that Burger is talking about...you might not "care what Burger said" but isn't it the fact that the interpretation he puts on the amendment is in accordance with the interpretation that has been settled law since 1939 (US v Miller)
interestingly it seems there is a notable case of the dreaded judicial activism - and i agree it is to be dreaded, outcome driven judicial determinations are anathema to the intellectual integrity that is to be expected and is the hallmark of a sound judiciary - in the case of US v Emerson where a northern texas District Judge, without the support of any legal precedent and flying in the face of years of precedence, found that the amendment did guarantee the individual - not,you will note, the miltia - (which, as i understand it, is these days what you have in the National Guard - which, I take it, is sufficiently well armed)the right to keep and bear arms. To my knowledge this decision has since been over-ruled by two federal Courts - including a higher Circuit court saying the Amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v City of Indianapolis)
i will be interested to see what happens when the Silveria case that riffy's link led me to is heard by the Supreme Court (if in fact it is)
The recent appointment of Roberts made the news here, of course, and while it seems that his political/moral views may lean to the conservative he struck me as a sound jurist who was also legally conservative - and as this discussion shows legally conservative approaches do not always or necessarily lead to politically conservative outcomes
|
| October 8th, 2005 04:11 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
you seem to be referring to my post there and making the classic error of interpretation that Burger is talking about...you might not "care what Burger said" but isn't it the fact that the interpretation he puts on the amendment is in accordance with the interpretation that has been settled law since 1939 (US v Miller)
interestingly it seems there is a notable case of the dreaded judicial activism - and i agree it is to be dreaded, outcome driven judicial determinations are anathema to the intellectual integrity that is to be expected and is the hallmark of a sound judiciary - in the case of US v Emerson where a northern texas District Judge, without the support of any legal precedent and flying in the face of years of precedence, found that the amendment did guarantee the individual - not,you will note, the miltia - (which, as i understand it, is these days what you have in the National Guard - which, I take it, is sufficiently well armed)the right to keep and bear arms. To my knowledge this decision has since been over-ruled by two federal Courts - including a higher Circuit court saying the Amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v City of Indianapolis)
i will be interested to see what happens when the Silveria case that riffy's link led me to is heard by the Supreme Court (if in fact it is)
The recent appointment of Roberts made the news here, of course, and while it seems that his political/moral views may lean to the conservative he struck me as a sound jurist who was also legally conservative - and as this discussion shows legally conservative approaches do not always or necessarily lead to politically conservative outcomes
Riffhard took like three options and punted. Yellow flag!
SIA, we are all out to lunch here on the new Supreme Court nominee. I think its a joke, like nearly everything George Walker Bush III does, its just all around retard. The ONLY reason this woman is being appointed is that she is a woman replacing a woman, and she happened to know George Walker Bush III. We already did this PC idiocy with Clarence Thomas.
Thank the god that out of the stilted brain of George Walker bush III came Judge Roberts. From everything I've read, he has been a great jurist and I think that will continue. |
| October 8th, 2005 01:35 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Jesus motherfucking Christ! Thats like never before contemplated option E - The Earth Am Flat.
I think your option E in this case constitutes the look, there is a blimp option.  |
| October 8th, 2005 01:59 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
A true conservative would hate the Stones. Hate every thing about them. And Dylan. And Neil Young. And George A Romero. And Huxley.
A true conservative would fight to have all that shit stopped, before it polluted the minds of the young and the weak.
Either you is for...or you is against. No middle ground!!
Once Wade Vs Roe is reversed - watch America burn.
And, you dont even call it "Creationism" anymore.
Its now "intelligent design".
Like Michael Bolton or Poison were ever intelligent design?
Anyway, here's an ass.
 |
| October 8th, 2005 07:17 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
A true conservative would hate the Stones. Hate every thing about them. And Dylan. And Neil Young. And George A Romero. And Huxley.
A true conservative would fight to have all that shit stopped, before it polluted the minds of the young and the weak.
Either you is for...or you is against. No middle ground!!
Once Wade Vs Roe is reversed - watch America burn.
And, you dont even call it "Creationism" anymore.
Its now "intelligent design".
Like Michael Bolton or Poison were ever intelligent design?
Anyway, here's an ass.
You libs are entertaining as hell. LOL! |
| October 8th, 2005 07:44 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
A true conservative would hate the Stones. Hate every thing about them. And Dylan. And Neil Young. And George A Romero. And Huxley.
A true conservative would fight to have all that shit stopped, before it polluted the minds of the young and the weak.
Either you is for...or you is against. No middle ground!!
Once Wade Vs Roe is reversed - watch America burn.
And, you dont even call it "Creationism" anymore.
Its now "intelligent design".
Like Michael Bolton or Poison were ever intelligent design?
Thats a bunch of bullshit and you know it. |
| October 8th, 2005 07:49 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
you seem to be referring to my post there and making the classic error of interpretation that Burger is talking about...you might not "care what Burger said" but isn't it the fact that the interpretation he puts on the amendment is in accordance with the interpretation that has been settled law since 1939 (US v Miller)
Burger's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment, to anyone who knows anything about American history and who can read english, is totally absurd. This interpretation was the basis for you contention that its a liberal reading of the 2nd amendment that lead to the idea that there is some general right to bear arms expressed in the constitution. Sirmoonie, not knowing the language of the actual ammendment, then cites your post as evidence that liberal interptretations of the constitution are used to support conservative political agendas  |
| October 8th, 2005 07:50 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
the good wrote:
I think your option E in this case constitutes the look, there is a blimp option.
What? Dude, I'm all ears on the 2nd Amendment, its a totally trivial issue, but interesting nonetheless. I'm not sure the 9th Circuit is right, I only read it once, and never read the 5th circuit opinion. You not only have never read either one, but misquoted the Constitution, the primary source of yur argument. Thats fucking stupid. It may persuade, but its still fucking stupid. Might be gay too.
Moof piss. |
| October 9th, 2005 05:42 AM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
the good wrote:
then cites your post as evidence that liberal interptretations of the constitution are used to support conservative political agendas :
i'm now convinced you don't even understand the meaning of a "liberal" legal approach - the amendemnt grants a right: to read it liberally i.e. broadly and to allow the right as much expression as possible brings you to the conclusion that the right of the people keep and bear arms shopuld be as unencumbered as possible if at all
the conservative legal approach is to read the right, if not narrowly then at least strictly by giving some consideration as to what the predictive phrase is supposed to mean or to what length that may qualify or determine the right
in this respect the terms liberal/conservative have nothing to do with political implications or outcomes
now do you understand??
i'm not real big on american history but then again i'm not bad either for a non-native - but i do know the english language and the principles of statutory interpretation better than most
while, as sirm suggests it's no big deal, it's certainly interesting to me - the one point i might recant from my post is the reference to the now national guard being analogous to the "militia'" as referred to in the law - but that may then, however, make it extremely difficult to interpret or at least open to a number of interpretations - but it would seem to me you cannot simply ignore the preambulatory phrase - it's there - it's got to mean something and so it must have some influence on the interpretation of the declaration of the right
My question would then be - how much weight does the
present Court place in what they might think the intention of the Framers was, in deciding what it means today??
|
| October 9th, 2005 07:04 PM |
|
|
| Ronnie Richards |
You just know there's something wrong with the world when fucking nazi lawyers are rolling stones fans
[Edited by Ronnie Richards] |
| October 9th, 2005 09:51 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
i'm now convinced you don't even understand the meaning of a "liberal" legal approach - the amendemnt grants a right: to read it liberally i.e. broadly and to allow the right as much expression as possible brings you to the conclusion that the right of the people keep and bear arms shopuld be as unencumbered as possible if at all
the conservative legal approach is to read the right, if not narrowly then at least strictly by giving some consideration as to what the predictive phrase is supposed to mean or to what length that may qualify or determine the right
in this respect the terms liberal/conservative have nothing to do with political implications or outcomes
now do you understand??
Yes- that's the whole point. Its NOT a liberal reading of the second ammendment that finds the right for a citzen to own a weapon. That's why I cited the ACTUAL constitution, something you didn't do. You cite Burger and act like his word is the word of GOD or something.
Now do you understand? |
| October 9th, 2005 10:37 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
the good wrote:
Yes- that's the whole point. Its NOT a liberal reading of the second ammendment that finds the right for a citzen to own a weapon.
Now do you understand?
yes i understand that you don't or can't or won't see the difference between the political and the legal uses of terms liberal and conservative
also get yourself a dictionary and look those words up - that might help for a start
cioa baby
|
| October 9th, 2005 10:39 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Ronnie Richards wrote:
You just know there's something wrong with the world when fucking nazi lawyers are rolling stones fans
[Edited by Ronnie Richards]
steady ronnie - no need to be abusive |
| October 9th, 2005 10:46 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Any atty worth his soul is appalled at what is happening to our civil liberties under this Bush.
[Edited by jb] |
| October 9th, 2005 11:16 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
hey jb - we're having the same thing happen down here too - the terrorists are winning - we've now all happily agreed that people can be held without charge or without being brought before a court for fourteen days with the ability for the authorities to extend that time by simply re-arresting the suspect after the 14 days is up
it's new world we live in now jb and it's not very pretty - george orwell was spot on he just had his dates a little confused
and now i'm confused - with comments like those above i stand to be accused of being some kind of lefty type (which i'm not) - although our new man ronnie thinks i'm a nazi - i'm not one of those either - in fact that's the first time i've ever had someone call me that!!
i told you jb - the world has gone mad and we are all going to hell in a hand-basket
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
| October 9th, 2005 11:20 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
stonedinaustralia wrote:
hey jb - we're having the same thing happen down here too - the terrorists are winning - we've now all happily agreed that people can be held without charge or without being brought before a court for fourteen days with the ability for the authorities to extend that time by simply re-arresting the suspect after the 14 days is up
it's new world we live in now jb and it's not very pretty - george orwell was spot on he just had his dates a little confused
and now i'm confused - with comments like those above i stand to be accused of being some kind of lefty type (which i'm not) - although our new man ronnie thinks i'm a nazi - i'm not one of those either - in fact that's the first time i've ever had someone call me that!!
i told you jb - the world has gone mad and we are all going to hell in a hand-basket
[Edited by stonedinaustralia]
Indeed my friend..............Avian flu, Hurricanes, Tsunami's , George Bush, John Roberts, etc.......armegedon is surely closing in... |
| October 9th, 2005 11:47 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Ronnie Richards wrote:
You just know there's something wrong with the world when fucking nazi lawyers are rolling stones fans
[Edited by Ronnie Richards]
What? German Fiji hasn't "posted" here under his "original" name in months.
But welcome to the board! Yet once again! Maybe even in the same thread! Welcome! |
| October 10th, 2005 12:30 AM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
quote:
the good wrote:
sirmoonie- I really didn't feel that your multiple choice test was worth anything since it was based upon a silly reading of the second amendment. It is not a "liberal" interpretation of the second amendment to find the right to bear arms in it. Either the right is there or it isn't. It reads (caps my emphasis):
[Right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED] A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.
Goodie, you are out to lunch on so many levels. The first results from your very quoting of the 2nd Amendment. A specific antecedent to the right to keep and bear arms is the phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". In the 18th Century, America did not yet have a well regulated militia. Therefore, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was necessary to the survival of the country. That is no longer the case. Am I correct in assuming that you are aware that the Constitution goes out of its way not to micromanage life in America? Things change over the generations. With those changes come updated interpretations of the tenets of the Constitution (not all wise by the way). If we had to adhere to all of the beliefs of the founding fathers, people could still own slaves, women could not vote, and people would be getting rich selling buggy whips.
quote:
the good wrote:
Now, I don't care what Burger said. To anybody who can read, the language of the amendment makes it CLEAR the people had the right to KEEP KEEP KEEP and BEAR arms. Period. End of story. That is not liberal interpretation of the document. Its the actual text, which to this point hasn't been cited.
You fall into the same trap that befall many others of labelling people liberal or conservative. It is possible to be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. For instance, I am rather conservative/Republican on fiscal issues, but tend toward liberal/Democratic on a number of social issues. What label would you ascribe to me? In addition, you need to think what it means to be conservative or liberal. By definition, a conservative would be someone who wants to maintain the status quo. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines conservative as one "disposed to conserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. and to agree with gradual rather than abrupt change". By that definition, anyone wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade (not Wade v. Roe) would be anything but conservative. Anyone trying to ingratiate religion into government, schools (love the spin of intelligent design), etc. would be flaming liberals. Anyone trying to have federal government pre-empt the field in areas where states have historically legislated are liberal as hell. There is still a 10th Amendment.
Even if you were correct about the right to keep and bear arms (which I do not concede), there is no enumerated right to bullets, not even in a penumbra.
|
