ronwill

Remember these are the one's that are supposed to protect your civil liberties. After all, they defended the right of Nazi's to congregate.

ACLU's absurd definition of 'the people'

Sig 210

"The ACLU argued that the term "the people" should have its definition changed to mean "the state militia," as the ACLU website states under the section "Gun Control":"

Yep, the ACLU uses a very different intrepretation of "the people" when some
skinhead or nazi organization wants to parade through a Jewish neighborhood.

Kerbouchard

I am completely fine with replacing the word 'people' with 'milita' as far as the second admendment goes.

As long as they are willing to concede the fact that all able bodied men(and women, based on equal rights movement) are part of said militia.

And if they will agree that I am part of the militia, then I want militia type weapons...rocket launchers, automatic rifles, etc.

Why can't these people understand that there was no such thing as a 'national guard' or an organized 'reserve' when the 2nd admendment was written?

Milita/the people were synonymous at the time of the writing. Which is why it is worded in that way. Just because the anti's want to change the meaning of the word 'militia', does not mean they can change what the 2nd admendment meant.

We have a living language. Unlike languages that are no longer spoken, inventions, progress, and technology necessitate adding meaning to words, or having the word evolve to mean other things.

This does not in any way give permission to the judges or people in general to change the meaning of a law due to a new interpretation of an existing word.

I want to know why we don't argue what the exact meaning of 'shall not be infringed' means. I don't believe those words have changed meaning since 1776.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

Rivers

So that means, by YOUR definition, anyone with a disability would not be allowed to have a gun because he or she is not "able bodied." So much for "fair and equal protection under the law." Or maybe some people are more equal than others...

I believe that you meant well, but that argument leaves a very sour aftertaste.

Kerbouchard

You ever notice how few 'disabled' people there were back in those times? Ever since we started letting people get labeled with disabled, it seems to have skyrocketed the amount of 'disabled' people.

A woman who weighs 600 pounds because of poor choices isn't disabled, she's just fat.

As far as mentally disabled people, those, too, have skyrocketed. Our current society breeds 'disabled' people.

But as far as your reply, I'm glad that you chose that part of my post to pay attention to.

As far as my complete stance on this issue.
I believe the right to own guns is inherrent. It is not granted by state or federal authority or by the 2nd admendment. It is an ingrained right, that comes with being alive. I believe the same about self defense. It is an ingrained human right to defend your life with force, if necessary.

I believe the 2nd admendment is about a milita. I believe it was intended to provide a means to fight back against a tyrranical gov't or to fight off a foreign invasion. I believe the 2nd admendment refers to the right of the milita to own weapons that are currently and commonly used for military purposes. I do not believe the 2nd admendment was intended to include everybody, or act as a means to grant or restrict access to weapons. I believe our founding fathers believed that the right to own a weapon was an inherrent God given right and did not need to be specifically mentioned.

If you look back into the time it was written, everybody did not have equal rights. That statement did not exist at the time the constitution and Bill of Rights was written, and the Founding Fathers didn't believe in "fair and equal protection under the law."

Women could not vote, and in many states or territories could not even own property. They didn't have laws to protect handicapped people or to give them equal rights. They didn't have wheelchair ramps. If you wanted to get up some stairs, you had to climb. Things are a lot different now. A handicapped person can actually live and interact in today's society. Although, I don't believe people that had lost an arm or a leg thought they deserved any special consideration during those days. They probably would have shot somebody who dared to call them handicapped, or to imply that they needed 'special attention'.

You cannot view the constitution in a politically correct manner. It wasn't politically correct, and the founders of this country had no concept of 'politically correct'. If you take offense to that, I'm sorry, if you believe in an afterlife, take it up with them, not me.

Until then, I'd appreciate it if you would get off your politically correct high horse.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

ronwill

If you look back into the time it was written, everybody did not have equal rights.
Quote:
"fair and equal protection under the law."

That statement did not exist at the time the constitution and Bill of Rights was written, and the Founding Fathers didn't believe in "fair and equal protection under the law."


What about the "All men are created equal" part of the constitution? I believe if you really study the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers, you'll find they did believe in "fair and equal protection", including women. All were given trials. Yes there were some differences of opinion back then, as now, but over-all the belief in equal treatment under the law was there.

Kerbouchard

It would take a lot of studying of the constitution to find the words "All men are created equal".

'All men are created equal' was part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

It isn't until the 14th admendment that the constitution begins to talk about equal rights under the law. And the 2nd admendment has yet to be incorporated under the 14th.

And I was trying to leave slavery out of this, but as far as men, and the definition of 'people', there was obviously a difference in who they considered part of the people.

The 2nd admendment was worded deliberately to exclude certain people. That is why it starts the way it does.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

OPFOR

Today, it would read "All men, women, womyn, transgendered persons, trans-specied persons, persons who do not wish to be associated with any gender, persons who do not wish to be known as a person, and any other type, class, specification, or individual not enumerated above, are created equal, unless and until any member or group of members of one of the above classes choose to exercise their individual or collective rights not to be equal, and with the full and complete understanding that being born is not, in and of itself, a requirement for this equality (or lack thereof).

__________________
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

nutz4utwo

some spirited responses above...

I have seen ACLU's stupid opinion before. It amazes me that they consider themselves "protectors of the rights of people".

Hopefully, they will be eating their words after Heller gets out...

Cthulhu

Sure...as long as they also use that definition for "the people" in the Constitution's preamble.

Idjits.

-JT