Charles.
This looks like a good one. I'm sure the NRA is on it.
<Shelly Parker et al V. District of Columbia, Case #04-7041>
Can't post a link. You'll have to Google it.
Dave.
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms"
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
kauboy
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)
OMG!!! These people just don't get it. Throughout that entire document, "they" are using modern terminology to explain/describe the historical usage of the wording. If you ask actual historical scholars about the meaning of the words alone, and not take into account the political aspects, they all agree that the people are the militia and that the right to "keep and bear arms" directly means that individuals should have arms to use in the case that they must rise up in defense of the state.
There is no way that this will ever go through. My suggestion is that we file a suit to stop automobile violence. Since obviously its the automobiles that are causing drunk driving accidents and pedestrian hit-and-run incidents. I think we should ban them from the roads. They kill far more people each year than our guns. It couldn't possibly be the incompetent people sitting behind the wheel, huh?
If you care to read it, you can do so here. Its a PDF, and its big, so be warned.
There is no way that this will ever go through. My suggestion is that we file a suit to stop automobile violence. Since obviously its the automobiles that are causing drunk driving accidents and pedestrian hit-and-run incidents. I think we should ban them from the roads. They kill far more people each year than our guns. It couldn't possibly be the incompetent people sitting behind the wheel, huh?
If you care to read it, you can do so here. Its a PDF, and its big, so be warned.
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V