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

"Info Junkie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:55:03 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "snip"
>
> >No court has ruled the states or feds can't RESTRICT or REGULATE
> >weapons owning, transport, carrying, or use. YOUR use of
> >"infringe" is a strawman; the use of "infringe" in the 2nd Amen
> >refers to the feds infringing on the rights of the STATES.
>
> retsrict
> 1: to subject to bounds or limits
>
> regulate:
>  1: to govern or direct according to rule
>
> infringe:
> : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
>  Example: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>  infringed -- U.S. Constitution amend. II
> (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com)
>
> If, as you say, the amendment refers to states and not individuals, are
you
> saying that the states, all known to have been jealous of each other,
would
> voluntarily ratify a document that allows the "rights" of the "state" to
be
> subject to *regulation* and/or *restriction* (see definitions above) from
the
> very government they wish to be protected from?
>
> OTOH, if such a power was to limit the "feds infringing on the rights of
the
> STATES", of what use would the passage of Article X be needed?
>
> What is evident is the court cases you cite are post-1937, from a court
that is
> well known to historians to have flagrantly practiced  judicial activism.
hmmm.

Here's one for Steve Krulick: Why is it that the Pesident of the United
States of America, the Vice-president, ALL members of the legislature,
judiciary, and military DO NOT SWEAR TO PROTECT THE STATE? Bonus: What do
they swear to support and defend?

-*MORT*-