Scalia seems to have opened the door to say "yes", but congressman Jamie Raskin begs to differ:
Scalia seems to have opened the door to say "yes", but congressman Jamie Raskin begs to differ:
Anyone with an elementary school level of reading comprehension knows
that it isn't
John Levine wrote:
Scalia seems to have opened the door to say "yes", but
congressman Jamie Raskin begs to differ:
Anyone with an elementary school level of reading comprehension
knows that it isn't
Let me call on my elementary school literacy -
"...being necessary to the security of a Free state"
"Free state", hmmmmm.... synonymous with sovereign state, yes/no?
And should the federal gubmit prove oppressive, that would
derogate the "free" bit, would it not? Hence the "free state"
should have the means to preserve its freedom, by effecting its
sovereignty, via its militia, should it not?
Or did the framers intend that phrase to be ignored, as
inconvenient and enigmatic?
"...being necessary to the security of a Free state"
"Free state", hmmmmm.... synonymous with sovereign state, yes/no?
And should the federal gubmit prove oppressive, that would
derogate the "free" bit, would it not? Hence the "free state"
should have the means to preserve its freedom, by effecting its
sovereignty, via its militia, should it not?
Or did the framers intend that phrase to be ignored, as
inconvenient and enigmatic?
And it's up to each of us individually to determine of the State is
"free" and attack it with deadly weapons if we don't think it's free
enough? So you're saying that I can kill politicians I don't like,
with impunity because I think they're making the state less free than
I would want? Wow.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 248 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 44:51:29 |
Calls: | 5,496 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 11,665 |
Messages: | 5,042,910 |
Posted today: | 2 |