Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Idyllic, you misunderstood Derwood's post. dksuddeth interprets the second amendment as being an individual right. Derwood's point was that the second amendment clearly states that "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." So, either the constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language, and the right to bear arms is not an individual right, or the constitution requires interpretation. Derwood's point was that you can't have it both ways.
Regarding your other point, why do you think "FEDERAL REGULATION of Health Insurance" sounds inherently wrong? Why is it any more wrong than the multitude of other things the federal government regulates? Or, perhaps you're against all federal regulation?
|
a complete and total crock of shit. those that intend to interpret a 'well regulated milita' as being the national guard is just plain ignorant, especialy considering that the national guard did not exit back then. a 'militia' was a body of the people, not a government run entity. what part of that is unclear?
---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
"and in those days" is exactly my point.
|
meaning you don't like that you can't change the meanings of those words[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
Yes. and it is used, but since the wording of the constitution has ALOT of wiggle room, most of the time it's not needed.
|
that 'wiggle room' provided your jim crow laws, your kelo precedent, and your united citizens verdict.. are you happy with that?