Heller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GunsKill Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That's one interpretation.... the republican
> one.
> >
> > Go away, you're an antique.
>
>
> Well, here's the Supreme Court's interpretation:
>
> Held:
>
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual
> right to possess a firearm unconnected with
> service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as
> self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause
> announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand
> the scope of the second part, the operative
> clause. The operative clause’s text and history
> demonstrate that it connotes an individual right
> to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
>
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the
> Court’s interpretation of the operative clause.
> The “militia” comprised all males physically
> capable of acting in concert for the common
> defense. The Antifederalists feared that the
> Federal Government would disarm the people in
> order to disable this citizens’ militia,
> enabling a politicized standing army or a select
> militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
> power to abridge the ancient right of individuals
> to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a
> citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp.
> 22–28.
>
> (c) The Court’s interpretation is
> confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in
> state constitutions that preceded and immediately
> followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
>
> (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting
> history, while of dubious interpretive worth,
> reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
> that unequivocally referred to an individual right
> to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
>
> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment
> by scholars, courts and legislators, from
> immediately after its ratification through the
> late 19th century also supports the Court’s
> conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
>
> (f) None of the Court’s precedents
> forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither
> United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor
> Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the
> individual-rights interpretation. United States v.
> Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right
> to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but
> rather limits the type of weapon to which the
> right applies to those used by the militia, i.e.,
> those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp.
> 47–54.
>
>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.ht
> ml
>
>
> Supreme court opinion > your opinion.
>
> You lose.
Do I?
You do realize that in the Heller case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes within the home, in federal enclaves only, don't you?
And you do realize that only the republican justices on the bench ruled this way, don't you?
Democrats will not rest until gun control in under control.
Only a scared little doomsday-is-coming nut job or a racist republican, afraid of african americans, would own a gun.