« Proposed OAS treaty | Main | City's brief in Chicago challenge »
Wash. Times takes aim at Pelosi
Editorial here.
Hat tip to reader Scott D. Camassar...
6 Comments | Leave a comment
An historical presenstation on the Bill of Rights related usage of "shall not be infringed" language by the Founders' can be found here.
U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) meeting yesterday and today (Thursday/Friday) April 16-17. Voiced my recommendation to arm U.S. merchant vessels and crew against pirates AND to add an endorsement to the new Merchant Marine Credentials (looks like a U.S. Passport but it is red in color. It replaces the old Merchant Marine Document ID Card.
More info at my blog.
Don no one cares about your butty, unwinnable case. You've trolled many gun fourms and blogs with that stupid case.
Just stop. You're a weak, pathetic troll and I can troll better then you ever can.
Don,
Great post. Short and on topic. Keep up the good work and most of us will not resent your trolling as we have in the past. Go slow, you do have a reputation to overcome. But again, good information, good post.
Hawaii has had licensing and registration of guns for about 50 years.
Moved there, lived there for about ten years, moved away, and did not know this.
Good thing I never committed an armed robbery; got busted; and nailed with another charge for an unregistered firearm; because until know I honestly did not know that registration was required.
And people still believe the courts when they say that the right to keep and bear Arms is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. Stupid people. Stupid law schools for teaching such garbage.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is an absolute command and includes ANYTHING and EVERYTHING concerning Arms. It is not a question. The language is not unclear. ANYONE with a elementary grade level grasp of grammar can recognize the declarative stance of the introductory clause. But then that is a problem since 90% of those educated in the public schools have no grammarical skills.
What can be restricted is the improper use, i.e. when someone kills someone, robs someone using an Arm, etc. The simple act of owning, carrying and using an Arm for any legitimate purpose cannot be legistated away. No government has that authority legitimately.
I use the "ALL, SOME, & NONE" logical evaluation to determine what a clause of phrase must mean. So lets look at "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Take the position that it is a "NONE", meaning SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED halts NONE of the legislation with respect to Arms. This position is untenable because if SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED provide no protection it would not be in the Constitution. So lets say, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED falls under the SOME category. I ask you whose SOME or which SOME of the legislative actions is ok under SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? Can two persons agree? can 300 million? For law to be law, it must be consistent for everyone. So we are left to say that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED restricts ALL legislation.
Tiochfaidh ar la!