Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule10b5
I very rarely flame someone, and I'm trying to restrain myself. You took a shot at me, and you were snarky about it....
|
LOL And they wonder why the world so loves lawyers. There was no shot implied or tossed but thanks for your restraint. As others can tell you, my shots are in no way obscure. In other words, you will know it.
You are completely correct in your statement of how our system was set up but may I suggest pulling the head out of the law books and look around at the real world we live in. Hope that wasn't too snarky, whatever the hell that means.
While our more esteemed and better educated brothers in the law may debate the meaning of "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" until the cows come home, I dare say that the rest of us unwashed masses have no trouble understanding concepts such as "shall not be questioned" and "shall not be infringed". (BTW, this is not a slam against you, just a general statement).
Regardless of what You (or I for that matter) say Article 4 means, what matters is what the pinheads who pass and enforce the laws do with our most revered document. The perversion of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is mind numbing. All one needs to do is look at the attemped perverion in the case of same sex marriages. The only Clause more perverted is the Commerce Clause.
Nevertheless, may I suggest a deep breath and not being so easily offended. If you do then I'll let you in on a secret, you are right in much of what you posted especially "National concealed carry is unconstitutional". How you managed to interpret a different meaning from my original words (original intent, if you will) is a tad bit unnerving. Although the "negative" amendment thingy is quite a lawyerly twist as I see it as a very affirming statement when looked at from the citizen's point of view - we are and have been in almost total agreement.
Oh, and you mispelled "intrinsic"
