for or against ACLU

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
I've posted references in depth that appeared in scholarly journals, mostly law journals. These references of course, support the only viable position re: the Second Amendment, the position I hold. Those favoring the "Collective rights" position, the one wherein you must be a militia member to have a gun and can only use it in that regard, have virtually no supporting documentation, and what little is available, again, is authored by anti-self defense lobbyists. Still, you've an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong? You're interpretation is one interpretation ,there's is another. That's because based on the fact it's a vague clause!

If you'll just do the research of the opposing view, and post it here, we can get that in depth "opposing view" literature you've mentioned several times.

Why? As I've stated before, I am progun. I don't particularly care to argue from an anti-gun standpoint. I've outlined the opposing view that can be derived from this vague clause, from a states' militia viewpoint.

Any link provided that supports the other viewpoint will be construed as some "commie" link or something stupid by you anyway, dude. Even the American Bar Association is "leftist" to you now. The content won't even be reviewed by you, so why bother? It's a waste of time with such a biased ego-driven person (with "superior" grammar no less LOL), over a VAGUE clause.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I"m just tired of you guys and your "i'm right and superior" attitude over this vague clause claiming it's "clear" when it's not, that can be interpreted either way.

There is only grey area if you are going out of your way to see it. The phrase "the people" makes it perfectly clear who the amendment applies to, and the US militia act further clarifies that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the unregulated militia to muster "armed with suitable military arms of the day, supplied by themselves."

At any rate, i would not talk down to you after you have gone out of your way to be nice to me miss.

PS: Pennsylvania's own constitution does use the extremely black and white text that you mentioned in your last post to me.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

Not any grey area there at all, is there?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by m21sniper
There is only grey area if you are going out of your way to see it. The phrase "the people" makes it perfectly clear who the amendment applies to, and the US militia act further clarifies that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the unregulated militia to muster "armed with suitable military arms of the day, supplied by themselves."

At any rate, i would not talk down to you after you have gone out of your way to be nice to me miss.

PS: Pennsylvania's own constitution does use the extremely black and white text that you mentioned in your last post to me.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

Not any grey area there at all, is there?

Not in the pennsylvania's constitution, no, there is no grey area. In the 2nd Amendment, yes, it's vague, and one doens't have to "go out of their way" to see that it's vague.