Another response to A Well Regulated Militia...—from someone named "guns_equal_freedom":
Constitution equals freedom
>> What part of the Constitution don't you understand? Oh yea, the part YOU don't like. <<
I understand all of it, since I've read it all. What's your excuse?
Which one of the words "well" and "regulated" don't you understand? Or do you not understand them both?
The framers could've written "An UNregulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." Instead, they explicitly wrote "A WELL REGULATED militia...." Unless you think they were incompetent, they knew exactly what they were saying. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed...within the context of a well regulated militia.
That's how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment's wording is clear. A well regulated militia, not an unregulated militia, is what the Constitution authorizes. How we define "militia" is a detail since "well regulated" is incontrovertible.
>> Go fuck yourself. My First Amendment right. <<
Let me know when you have an intelligent response to my postings on the 2nd Amendment. Until then, I'll assume that I'd kick your butt—as indeed I would.
Rob Schmidt
Publisher
PEACE PARTY
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
Alexander Hamilton, the leading constitutional proponent, Federalist No. 29
Related links
Right-wing extremists: the enemy within
. . . |
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.