View Single Post
Old April 28, 2009, 09:05 PM   #65
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,167
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
The preferatory clause is simply an explanation of the purpose of the operative clause.

Which was the right of the state to arm a militia and the right of the individual to protect himself personally.
The amendment does not specifically protect the right of the states to arm militia nor the right of the militia to be armed because it is not neccessary. By protecting the right of the individual to be armed, the amendment makes it impossible to disarm the militia. The Second Amendment itself grants the right specifically only to the people, but that right was granted by extension to the militia because it was composed of the people.

Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Circuit Judge Gould would seem to disagree in his concurring Nordyke opinion.

Again it is dicta and not law. He is free to his opinion which in the issue here IMO he is no better informed than I. However, he is talking about small scale incursions by terrorists and not a conquering large scale invasion from another nation state which is what I thought MP was talking about. In the case of a terrorist the issue is self defense as would apply to a citizen not repelling a foreign army which would be opposed by our own.
So you disagree with the Judges opinion? Maestro Pistolero asked about the capacity to which armed citizens would serve in situations described by Nordyke. Apparently, you do not think they would serve at all. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that of Judge Gould carries a bit more weight that those of people who post anonymously on the internet.
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Page generated in 0.03412 seconds with 7 queries