80°
Partly Cloudy
-
Weekly Forecast
-
Wednesday71° 54° -
Thursday56° 38° -
Friday58° 38°
-
Saturday60° 43°
-
sponsored by
Follow The Times
Latest Local Offers
Hammond Fence Co. can take care of all of your Commercial and Residential FENCES!
Hammond Fence represents honesty, integrity and competitive pricing!
Be Ready for Swimsuit Season with a Spray Tan From Hair Ego. Call Today!!!
Call now to schedule your appointment
$20 Off Core Aeration with Overseeding Services.
Make your lawn healthier and look better with these and other …
National Video
Most Popular
- 1 Police investigating shooting outside North Hammond Walmart
- 2 Dyer man dies following construction accident at Northwestern University
- 3 Police: M'ville officer shot attacker
- 4 Woman enters guilty plea on child molestation, exploitation charges
- 5 Police seek public's help identifying person who dumped puppies
In Today's Paper
Poll
Loading…
Should all Indiana judges be chosen by a merit commission, the way they are in Lake and St. Joseph counties?
Recent Blog Posts
- LIVE: RailCats vs. Wingnuts in first early game of the season6 hours ago
- PREP BASEBALL: Roosevelt forfeits sectional game before postseason begins8 hours ago
- FIRST PITCH: Opening day, Michelle FieldsMay 16, 2013 7:30 pm
- LIVE: RailCats season opener vs. Lincoln SaltdogsMay 16, 2013 4:30 pm
Please Wait…
J Bird - You also are incorrect. The subordinate clause in the amendment merely states the prime (but not only) purpose for guaranteeing the right, and does not condition its exercise in any way.
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
As to arguing for changes to the Second Amendment, I submit that the amendment merely guarnatees in writing a fundamental right with which we have been endowed by Nature as human beings, that is not "granted" or "conferred" or "given" by the amendment. Therefore, the contemplation of changing the written guarantee does nothing to cancel or alter the right itself.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
Finally, the trial court decision in a current case pending before the Court of Appeals for the U.S. 4th Circuit sums up the right with absolute accuracy:
"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs." - Judge Benson Everett Legg for the U.S. 4th District, Woollard v. Sheridan
Given this overall picture, it is apparent that the so-called "debate" surrounding whether or not we should be "allowed" to exercise a right that is exclusively and inalienably ours is ridiculous and a waste of time.
...YOU CAN'T BUY BACK SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T SELL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Stop it. Just, STOP it.