OT Dan Quayle 8849
Except that the "reasoning" for the "right" implies its purpose.
Schenck v. United States (1919), a case arising out of World War I, established the precedent of "clear and present danger" as a method of determining First Amendment cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the First Amendment does not apply to words that "will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," limiting the "right" to yell "fire in a crowded theater."
Dennis v. United States (1951) held that advocacy of overthrow of the government could be made a criminal offense, even without proof of tangible action.
Actions and intent are fairly new to "law," examples being "hate crime" legislation, most of the time the law is focused on tangibles. Libel and slander are, by definitions, done knowingly and not by accident.
That may be your opinion, but it may not be a valid legal opinion.
OT Dan Quayle 8851
Liam Slider That, is a matter of interpretation, and the fact it is interpreted, is sort of the point. That's the ruling of the supreme court, by definition, "consbreastutional." Again...
See the above precedents.
Semantics, lets say it is not a license to own a gun, but a registration.
OT Dan Quayle 8850
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:02:25 -0500, mlw It's "purpose" as you call it, is merely why the people believe that this particular right (the right to keep and bear arms) must not be infringed...
It is an interesting debate, and where one draws the line is an interesting study. Would you allow people to build and own an Atomic plant? What's the difference?
The point was the concept of "buttault." Not that you said it, but the reason why it was illegal.
It is just as much a part of the consbreastution as the bill of rights. You can't pick and choose.
Oh, please. This is the thing that ticks me off about these debates. You focus on a small handful of words and ignore the whole. The second amendment does not exist without the whole consbreastution. I respect the second amendment and I completely agree with what it says and the reasons for it. Knowing the times and the men involved, I also suspect it is meant to allow men be able to fight their own government if required.
That being said, the consbreastution is read as a whole. Any inherent limitations or privileges must be understood when interpreting any smaller part. That is the nature of law and completely as intended by the founding fathers.
I live in a fairly urban area. No guns. (well, only the police and criminals, probably) Anyway, I have a bow and I have also instructed my son how to shoot. (I bought him a 20LB compebreastion grade bow)
OT Dan Quayle 8852
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:16:21 -0500, mlw No, it's not interpreted. That's pretty damn literal. The Consbreastution is a set of rules, for how the government is to operate, and limits on...