D.C. v. Heller “BRIEF FOR BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE,

[jody]

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CHIEFS OF POLICE, MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE
OFFICERS, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK
LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES,
HISPANIC AMERICAN POLICE COMMAND
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL BLACK
POLICE ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL LATINO PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, SCHOOL SAFETY
ADVOCACY COUNCIL, AND POLICE EXECUTIVE
RESEARCH FORUM AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING PETITIONER”

Contrary to the lower court’s view, guaranteeing a
right to keep and bear arms to “the people” does not
imply that the right extends to private purposes unrelated
to militia service. The issue is not to whom the
right extends, but rather the nature and scope of the
right guaranteed.

The Scary Brady Bunch says government can ban firearms for self-defense and SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

Why would intelligent sovereign people ratify state constitutions and then our Constitution creating governments that left We the People defenseless against criminals?

[east texas lib]

1. Indeed!

They would graciously extend to you the right to die, unarmed, at the hand of an armed criminal.
But it is oh so trendy and downright stylish! ;-)

[L1A1Rocker]

2. Why do people REFUSE to understand the 2A???

First, there is only ONE comma in the Second amendment.

Second, "The people: referred to in 2A is the same people refereed in throughout the BOR.

Third, Militia means all able bodied males.




Why do people go to such mental contortionism to make the 2A say something it doesn't?

[Tejas]

3. Brady et al have groomed them

"Why do people go to such mental contortionism to make the 2A say something it doesn't?"

Because they're closet Fascists?

[L1A1Rocker]

4. Maybe

I remember the US Constitution USED to taught in schools. It is not that difficult to read.

[Boomer 50]

5. It's a lack of education

What most of the "collective right" advocates don't get is that if the so called militia clause were to be predominate to the entire text of the 2nd, there wouldn't be a comma seperating the subordinate and dominate clauses. It would have been a semi colon. Hence, the first part of the sentence is the subordinate clause, it does not dictate the scope of the sentence it is suggestive of a reason for the second part, which is the dominate clause.

Basically, the the second part of the sentence states that an action will or will not happen. The first part basically is support in declaration of reason. It holds no prohibitive properties at all only showing that this is a reason why the second part of the sentence is so important.

It's like this... "The car would not start, the man walked to work." The first part gives a reason why the man walked to work but it may not be the only reason. It could be a nice day out too or any other reason.

If it was stated like this... "Because the car would not start; the man walked to work." Then it becomes the declaration of the sentence showing a single reason the man walked to work.