Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

"David E. Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Roger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Krulick wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > Look at the court cases. You're wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to
> > > > > infringe on the private ownership of weapons.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. The Const says nothing about private ownership of guns
> > > > one way or the other. But as regulation and restriction is NOT
> > > > the same as infringement, your point is moot.
> > > >
> > > > LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
> > > > Fourth Circuit.
> > > > Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
> > >
> > > Learn to read.
> > >
> > > I stated the fact that the federal government has no
> > > constitutional authority to infringe on the private ownership of
> > > weapons.  If you feel my assertion is wrong, feel free to cite
> > > portion of the Constitution which gives the federal government
> > > such authority.
> > >
> > > Good luck.
> > >
> > > Don't bother citing any court case.  Cite the Constitution.
> >
> > This is the fatal flaw in your legal thinking. No law, including the
> > Contitution, means ANYTHING AT ALL until a court interprets it.
> >
> > >
> > > David
> >
> >
>
> DY: So the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not mean anything when they
> were written, debated, and ratified? Then what possbile need is there for
> Constitutions?
>
> Ahhhh! I see the catch here. "Legal thinking". This might rate right up
> there with "military intelligence", no?
>
> Read the Founders' own period views on the Bill of Rights and Second
> Amendment, if you want to know those views.
>
Perhaps "Roger" would care to explain why the President of the United States
of America and each member of the legislature swear an oath to support and
defend the Constitution? That is IF it has no meaning?

President: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

Vice President: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
about to enter. So help me God."

Members of the Legislature: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Supreme Court Justices: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to
the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

While he is at it, perhaps he can explain why EVERY military personnel from
the newest recruit to the generals has sworn a similar oath to support and
defend the CONSTITUTION.


-*MORT*-