Do you interpret the Second Amendment, when it says "necessary to the security of a free State", to refer to preservation of the independences of States confronted with a strong central government, which would be done by permitting the states to keep militias, or the freedoms of the people? I feel that the first interpretation has some credence given how many supporters there were of partially autonomous states at the time of the writing of the Constitution (eg; United
States), and precedents that this view has in Europe (until the consolidation under absolutist monarchies, which were viewed as being terrible nations for the citizens to live in).
Um, you included a quote opposing tariffs. I am somewhat confused.
Quote:
Originally posted by Radar
My Constitutional references are above reproach and are 100% accurate.
|
Wow. That is incredible if true. Are we arguing with God?
04-28-2003, 09:55 PM
Threaded Mode