View Single Post
Old December 30, 2012, 08:28 PM   #53
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Western Colorado, finally.
Posts: 19,118
Originally Posted by 1stmar
Brian, that is open to interpretation. It's vague at best. You and I can read it however we see fit, but what matters is how the Supreme Court sees it, and that body is moving left.
Your personal opinion is open to interpretation. The historical, literal, common sense and SCOTUS views are not open to interpretation. They are crystal clear.

The point I made in my first post is also crystal clear from a historical, literal, grammatical, common sense perspective. The COTUS is an agreement between the people and the government that exists at their consent by their creation. The people are to be free from National government interference except for the matters explicitly spelled out in the COTUS. All other regulation is from the various states ONLY.

It's unmistakable. The National government has only specific powers. One power that is SPECIFICALLY denied them is to disarm the people. It is not only NOT an enumerated power, it is not even left open to interpretation. It is specifically denied them. Specifically denied. Not just vaguely "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,...", which should be enough on it's own merit, it is further specifically DENIED to the National government by being codified in the 2A.

I don't know how it could be any more clear.

If you were baby sitting my children and I left a note that said "Being that the cookies are purchased for my children, the babysitter may not take them home."

Would you be like, "Well, I know that SOME of those cookies weren't actually bought for the children. The neighbor brought them over for Christmas. I guess THOSE cookies I, the babysitter, can take home."

Of course you wouldn't say that.

They're MY cookies. Just because I gave you ONE reason why I have them, would you demand that it was the ONLY reason? If I decided to give some to friends, would you be like "Hey! You said those were for your children and I couldn't have them!" They're MY cookies. You have no say!

The cookies being used for the nourishment of the children; the babysitter shall not take them home.

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.

No interpretation. Common sense use of grammar and the unwritten implications that we all use every day.

It only gets dicey when we don't like the obvious meaning and WANT to go looking for something we DO like.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Page generated in 0.03410 seconds with 7 queries