Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[TIM] This amendment has been used to give everything from privacy to
abortion. It has been construed in almost every case to expand the rights
of the individual.
Amendment II
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.
[TIM] This amendment has been said to be a right of the states. Mind you
all of the other rights outlined in the bill of rights were those of the
individual. The second clause of the sentence is the one I feel has been
mainly ignored "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed". I all other cases the phrase "the people" means the individual.
Therefore there should be no laws in regards to firearms.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 8:28 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: 2nd Amendment (Was: Speaking of church and state)
Well, in what way are we more flexible about the 2nd amendment.
_____
From: loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:07 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Speaking of church and state
Shall we take it a step further into the 2nd amendment argument?
This is one of the things I try and tell people that are gun opponents.
Why
are we so literal in our interpretations of the 1st and 5th amendments and
so flexible about the 2nd?
Tim
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
