Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="farmerbyron" data-source="post: 1832238" data-attributes="member: 4953"><p>Guess technically that 2 of our current justices voted against an individual right but I have no doubts that Sotomayor and Kagan would have decided the same way as Souter and Stevens.</p><p></p><p>The argument comes down to the meaning of "Well regulated militia". Well regulated can certainly mean well equipped or provisioned. Especially considering that the militia consisted of all able bodied men and they were expected to bring their own arms. Also of note, every other amendment was a restriction upon govt. so how can you make the case that the second amendment is different and guaranteed the govts. right over the people. Which leads into another section of the wording. "The right of the people", is spelled out only in the first and second amendments and no one questions whether or not the first amendment is primarily an individual right.</p><p></p><p>Can't believe I'm having to make this case on a gun forum. You cannot ignore the whole wording and the context under which it was written.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="farmerbyron, post: 1832238, member: 4953"] Guess technically that 2 of our current justices voted against an individual right but I have no doubts that Sotomayor and Kagan would have decided the same way as Souter and Stevens. The argument comes down to the meaning of "Well regulated militia". Well regulated can certainly mean well equipped or provisioned. Especially considering that the militia consisted of all able bodied men and they were expected to bring their own arms. Also of note, every other amendment was a restriction upon govt. so how can you make the case that the second amendment is different and guaranteed the govts. right over the people. Which leads into another section of the wording. "The right of the people", is spelled out only in the first and second amendments and no one questions whether or not the first amendment is primarily an individual right. Can't believe I'm having to make this case on a gun forum. You cannot ignore the whole wording and the context under which it was written. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom