A friend and I were talking about the recent overturning of lower court decisions that interpreted the second amendment as only applicable to persons who are members of organized militias. GOD bless Robert Levy and the Supreme Court's little hearts.
The second amendment states simply 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."
However, most of the people that I know who are against individual ownership of "arms" would be even less pleased if the ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment was strictly enforced.
Regardless of whose definition of "well regulated" was applied, these folks are failing to foresee a growth in the number of groups like the Michigan Militia if the government made an attempt to strictly enforce this interpretation. Find anti-militia information here.
"arms" hmm. does this mean I can have that A-10?
Look here for more irritation regarding possession of guns in the homes of Washington DC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment