|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: The fallacy of judicial 'originalism'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If what the original authors of the Constitution meant guided today’s originalists and if the Constitution is a dead document, then the right to keep and bear arms would mean today the kind of arms prevalent in the 18th century. Also “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” would be constitutionally limited to members of “a well regulated militia.” That is clearly not the case.
Ed.: I guess the author thinks only the National Guard (a select militia) should have guns, and even then only 18th-century muskets. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/21/2018)
|
*yawn*
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - One'a them there original fellas
Now you really must excuse me, I have to go cling to my Bible and guns. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/21/2018)
|
| It would be of tremendous service to authors of this drivel if they would do the research and find out what the Founders' original intentions were prior to writing their .... drivel. *SIGH* |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/21/2018)
|
| It would be of tremendous service to authors of this drivel if they would do the research and find out what the Founders' original intentions were prior to writing their .... drivel. *SIGH* |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/21/2018)
|
Oooooops. Double tap. Sorry.
But it was worth repeating. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
