English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-11 09:51:02 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Somepolisci...:
As the definitive and final interpreter of the Constitution, I beg you to enlighten me on the following question:
How are we supposed to form a militia without arms?

2006-06-11 10:16:44 · update #1

7 answers

The NRA has a lot of money to do that so the ACLU can concentrate on other things.

2006-06-11 10:07:01 · answer #1 · answered by Sully 7 · 0 1

Remember that the 2nd Amendment is one of the few not incorporated against the states via the 14th. In other words, the 2nd Amendment only applies to federal regulation of 'arms', not to state/local regulation.

And as noted above, the use of the phrase "a well regulated militia" highlights the original intent that the purpose of that amendment was to protect the state's against the federal government, not the individual against the state.

2006-06-11 12:57:59 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

They're a private charity organization funded by private donations and take on whichever cases they choose. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1939 that set the precedent for the courts interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I personally disagree, but I can't disparage a private charity for not wanting to challenge it.

I'm more than happy that they are working diligently to protect my other rights, and the NRA, which exists wholly for the purpose of protecting the 2nd Amendment, is more than welcome to pick up the slack.

If you feel the ACLU should change its stance, start your own legal charity. The ACLU challenges the government or its agents, not private citizens, and won't care in the least that you would like to challenge the government on your own.

2006-06-11 10:02:59 · answer #3 · answered by lostinromania 5 · 0 0

Beacuse unlike the NRA and its supporters, the ACLU knows how to read the constitution and nowhere does it grant the right of anyone not in a militia to bear arms.

"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."

2006-06-11 10:00:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They tend to pick and choose which civil liberties they want to defend.

2006-06-11 09:54:21 · answer #5 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0 0

that's a damn good question

because they are being run by liberal interest groups and liberals want people needy and dependent on the government

2006-06-11 09:54:49 · answer #6 · answered by dharma_claire 4 · 0 0

You are a freak my friend.

2006-06-11 09:55:20 · answer #7 · answered by lordvaldermort 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers