you will need to explain someday....if you can tell me without having to kill me Over a few beer would be good.

 

ask him about his sword liquor bottle...its the coolest

 

There is nothing better than that first bowel movement in the morning.

 

Kohler should take a serious look at this.



fltsfshr

 

Been in the military and can't say if I am a Law Enforment Officer now!

Someone just needs to stick their head in my Cockpit to find out!!!!

 

u want our heads in your what?

 

Your ignorance of the 2nd amendment irritates me to no end. I wrote a college paper on the 2nd amendment arguments, and not only received a 100 on it from a professor that did not give a single A all semester, but he even wrote me informing me that after reading my paper, his view on the 2nd amendment has changed.

I'm not going to reproduce the entire paper for you here, but I'll give you the cliff notes so you'll understand the true meaning of what our founding fathers intended when they wrote this amendment:

The argument of the exact definition of, and how to properly interpret the 2nd amendment, has been one of the most heated and controversial debates in American political history. Advocates on both sides of the argument have exhausted billions of dollars and countless years in an attempt to enforce this law in the manner in which they feel it should be upheld. The two opposing sides to this argument feel very strongly about their interpretation, and this is probably due to the fact that what we have been debating over is one of the fundamental Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms. One side of the argument keys in on the structure of the entire amendment, stating that the right to keep and bear arms was as a provision to maintaining a well-regulated militia. The argument to this ideology, and the one that I will also be arguing, is that of approaching the structure of the amendment as stating the right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed to us and protected by this amendment. The militia statement is a declaration of purpose, not an exclusive reason.

As with the case of all the amendments included within the Bill of Rights, the purpose of their statement is to guarantee and protect those notions of personal freedoms that we view as rights, not privileges. These rights are not given to us because these amendments exist; they are ours by way of birth, that all men are created equal. The Bill of Rights protects these rights from infringement, whether it is by our own Government, or others. The 2nd amendment is no different, in that it guarantees us the right to arm ourselves, for whatever purpose we deem necessary. The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the individual, with the militia clause affording it a collective purpose. This does not transform the right to keep and bear arms into that of a collective right. There is no contrary writing in the Constitution, or in any other Federal document prior to the 20th century, stating that this amendment only applies to a regulated militia. Despite the fact that the amendment clearly states the need for a militia, nowhere is there stated or even hinted that membership in a militia is a prerequisite for keeping ore bearing arms. The reason that the militia clause is included in this amendment is due primarily to the fact that a militia was very much needed at the time, and guaranteeing the right of the individuals to keep and bear arms was a method the framers of the Constitution of the United States chose to ensure that a well-regulated militia could be maintained.

In order to provide evidence that the 2nd amendment pertains to an individual right, various historic documents have been written in an attempt to clarify and enforce the Founding Father's intentions. In 1803, St. George Tucker, a legal scholar, lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, and later a U.S. District Court Judge (1813), wrote about the 2nd amendment in his edition of "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England." "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the bring of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game; a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for every different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game, so that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." (http://www.guncitecom/gc2ndpur.html). As you can see here, Tucker attempted to define the 2nd amendment by light of a fundamental right to defend ones self. In fact, his argument is so powerful that is has been cited in over 40 Supreme Court cases. William Rawle, another jurist from the Founder's era, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). This work was later utilized as a constitutional law textbook at West Point, s well as other institutions. Rawle writes on the 2nd amendment, "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both" (http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html). By placing emphasis on "the people," Rawle ensures that this is viewed as an individual right, and that neither the Federal or State governments have the authority to disarm their citizens.

As it should be interpreted, it is apparent that the separate clauses of the 2nd amendment were not meant to be prerequisites to each other, but more so that of complimentary in nature. With such a strong argument towards the idea that the 2nd amendment is comprised of separate but complimentary clauses, how you ask, is it possible for this amendment to be viewed in any other way? The primary argument towards the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is held by those if the anti-gun rights advocates, who feel the 2nd amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized milita. their viewpoint on the matter of an armed public is that we live in an age now where we as a nation are protected by our State and National Guard, so there is no reason for the general public to be armed for means of being in a militia. In their opinion, since the amendment reads "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," a militia is the only specifically stated reason for people to keep and bear arms. You see how easily the same exact words can be interpreted in such a way as to foster two completely different camps of ideology? Very rarely do anti-gun advocates win their case in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. As in the case of U.S. vs. Emerson (46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999)), The supreme court ruled that "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the STATES to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, sows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the State, would be jeopardized."

I can go on and on and on with many, many, MANY more examples, but my point is clear. If this were a collective right, it would have read "the right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but it doesn't. The 2nd amendment is an individual right backing up a collective purpose. Do not confuse the two.

 

[QUOTE=wildcardtrd,Feb 1 2008, 03:20 PM] Your ignorance of the 2nd amendment irritates me to no end.

 

yea? which case did I incorrectly cite...I really want to know, so I can correct my mistake. I'm fairly certain that I'm not wrong, since I have exhaustively researched this subject for years.

 

Between lawmaker's salaries during the continuous gun legislation debates, the additional law enforcement utilized to enforce the Brady Bill (when it was active), the infrastructure set up to monitor and register all gun purchases and owners, along with the endless physical paper documentation that EVERY gun owner has had to fill out, yes, the grand whopping total exceeds a billion dollars.

I know that you are a lawyer, but that doesn't instantly make you right when it comes to interpreting Constitutional Law.