Recent content by Little-Acorn

Answerguy, BINGO!!! Thanks mucho, compadre!

A while back, someone was advertising a yard sign for the anti-gun folks to put in their yard as a testimonial to how strongly they believed their own agenda. It said something like, "This house has no guns. Owners are unarmed. Please don't assault or hurt us." Apparently they weren't selling...

One of the supreme ironies of this case, is that it's being heard in the same Federal District Court that heard the original US v. Miller case in 1939. Same district (Western district of Arkansas), different town. Before US v. Miller got to the Supreme Court in 1939, it was heard in this...

It's gone to the Supreme Court? Last time I checked (yesterday) it was in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hawkeye, what part of the 2nd amendment's text restricts its effect to the Fed govt and exempts the states?

Some people (most of the legal establishment, actually) say that the Bill of Rights (incl. the 2nd) was intended to restrict only the Fed govt, not the states or lower govts. That may be... but the people of the U.S. didn't ratify the Framers' intentions. They ratified the words printed on the...

Maybe they can acknowledge that the militia clause has no effect on the amendment's ban on government infringing the RKBA. Then they wouldn't even have to be crafty... just literate. :what:

All Feinstein needs to do, is get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the legislatures of the 50 states to vote to repeal the 2nd amendment, and she's good to go. :neener:

None of which has any effect on the meaning of the words of the 2nd amendment. No, I am saying that the states ratified the clear language of the 2nd and its meaning, which has not changed between that time and now. The language of the 2nd bans all government from infringing the RKBA, and...

The 2nd amendment does offer a reason why the RKBA cannot be infringed... but it doesn't make its ban contingent upon that reason. Suppose the 2nd said instead: "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Then in the 20th...

Ummm, sorry, but it doesn't. Read what it actually says. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's "the people", which means everybody. Even your 80-year old grandpa and your cousin's 6-month old baby, neither of whom are in any militia. If...

... but the people of the U.S. didn't ratify the Framers' intentions. They ratified the words printed on the paper that is the Constitution and (later) its Bill of Rights. I guess you'll have to ask them what they meant to ratify. Let me know what they say. But what they DID ratify, was...

And where is he now? Didn't do him much good, did they? Looks like he ran into an argument that was even more final. :evil:

The 2nd amendment does offer a reason why the RKBA cannot be infringed... but it doesn't make its ban contingent upon that reason. Suppose the 2nd said instead: "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Then in the 20th...

I assume your reply is meant as a joke. But here's the answer, for those who don't already know: DC (and all states, towns etc.) is empowered to pass any laws that do not run contrary to higher laws in the country. That includes the Constitution in this case. No part of the Constitution forbade...