Author Topic: Originalist interpretation of Constitution - question: (Read 673 times)

Charon · « **Reply #30 on:** June 30, 2005, 08:55:35 AM »

I hope you're not disagreeing with me. I fully accept and support and think its very clear what the definition of people and militia are. My point is that others seem to be apply that definition to what is acceptable or not in a firearm.

I personally don't plan on hunting with the Russian capture K98k I spent all last weekend cleaning up, but I am going to shoot it some once I get the headspace gauge. The same for the original feature 1944 Inland M-1 carbine that should arrive next week, if it doesn't suddenly become an "assault rifle" at some point down the road.

Charon

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 30, 2005, 09:02:11 AM »

no charon.. I am not being very clear I guess... What I am disagreeing with is that the amendment needs to be modified to be more hip and modern... It is fine as it is and, as you say, the intent is clear as is the meaning of the words in it.

I would like to have a ruling on just what the words mean. "people" is simply that... an individual right. I would like to get that out in the open and get a SC ruling on it.

The DOJ document is a good and comprehensive study..

If the anti gun nuts don't like the ruling that makes "people" mean the same as it does everywhere else in the constitution then it is they that can change the amendment.

I think it is fine and clear as it is.

lazs

Charon · « **Reply #32 on:** June 30, 2005, 09:15:42 AM »

Quote

I would like to have a ruling on just what the words mean. "people" is simply that... an individual right. I would like to get that out in the open and get a SC ruling on it.

I agree completely. It seems so clear from the support documentation that it would be hard for the SC to find otherwise -- I hope.

Charon

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 30, 2005, 02:21:18 PM »

charon... that is my point... I am really really tired of my right to bear arms being chipped away at because we (gun rights people) are too frieghtened to get it all out in the open in one big winner take all clash between us and the anti gun nuts...

Seems to me that the worst we could come out is somewhat better than we have it now.

Unless.. the dems put in a couple more SC judges from the politburo of the Kalifornia 9th district... then we might have the interpretation that "people" means a collective as in "it takes a villiage" kinda people or in "peoples republic of" kinda people but... that is happening anyway so let's just get it all out in the open.

In defense of the NRA and other second amendmenat defenders.... the anti gun nuts are just as frightened... they don't want to force the issue either... So far...they feel safer chipping away at our rights and we feel safer defending our rights each time they make an attack.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.ht

The Department Of Justice report, coupled with the very real possibility of new sympathetic SC's is a good enough reason to get a ruling on this whole mess.

lazs