Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

As for you Gator, you can't even stay and finish one debate before you start another. Logic can go in leaps and bounds to come to a conclusion but to make sure all follow your logic and understand your version it is best presented in a linear form.

What you and I have is a difference of opinion. Let us agree to disagree.

I agree, we do have a difference of opinion.
And I have no idea what you are talking about in the Post above.

Originally Posted by Gator

I agree, we do have a difference of opinion.
And I have no idea what you are talking about in the Post above.

I rest my case. Have a good day Gator.

You are a very strange individual.
I'm going to place you on ignore, because I believe you have nothing to offer but trying to start trouble.

Have a nice life Marinerhodes.

Originally Posted by Gator

You are a very strange individual.
I'm going to place you on ignore, because I believe you have nothing to offer but trying to start trouble.

Have a nice life Marinerhodes.

Welcome to the club, the few the proud the ignored.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Welcome to the club, the few the proud the ignored.

He keeps ignoring people then he won't have many people to talk to lol.

I wonder if I'm on anyones ignore list...

Just for the record I don't ignore anyone....I can handle it

This is now off topic....lol

2-1 ruling says Second Amendment is not limited to ‘militia’ needs

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.
"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.
The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.
Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.
A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office would not comment on the ruling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

Finally the Federal Court is not legislating from the Bench, but instead following the United States Constitution.

I believe the Second Amendment cannot be confined to only uniformed militia needs, as that would mean that there is no law in the US Constitution specifically granting the authority for the Regular Military Force to keep and bear Arms, and, the US Constitution already restircts the States from keeping Troops ready for War in time of Peace, so there would be in my opinion no need for a Federal right in the Second Amendment for the States to keep and bear Arms, seeing how the Federal Government would by statute need to allow such action by a second law for such an act to take place in time of peace.

Article I, Section 10.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

"The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional."

Since the Founding Fathers added no restrictions of any kind the the second ammendment, this statement reiterated the obvious.

"In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection."

Self protection of the individual was why the second ammendment was added. Protection from a usurping government as well as enemies of our Nation.

"There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."


Now there is Judge with a firm grip on the obvious, or maybe just gifted with understanding the written word. If no one challenges unjust laws, then freedom will wither and die. Freedom is much easier to maintain than to win back when it's taken away.

Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.
A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office would not comment on the ruling.

I like this

"There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."