In reply to:
Certainly no court in america would agree with your definition of the second amendment.

---

Quote:

Well I'm glad I panicked you into making a post on topic at least! Did the moderators have a word with you?

---

Quote:

Try reading the court transcript. 

---

Quote:

Once again, no court in america would agree with your definition of the second amendment. 

---

Wrong yet again. But no surprise.

Sorry to see you're so closed minded that you can't admit you're wrong.

"The United States appeals the district court's dismissal of the indictment of Defendant-Appellee Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson (Emerson) for violating 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). The district court held that section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) was unconstitutional on its face under the Second Amendment and as applied to Emerson under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We reverse and remand."

"The district court granted Emerson's motions to dismiss. Subsequently, the district court issued an amended memorandum opinion reported at 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). The district court held that dismissal of the indictment was proper on Second or Fifth Amendment grounds, but rejected Emerson's Tenth Amendment and Commerce Clause arguments."

"B. Stare Decisis and United States v. Miller

The government steadfastly maintains that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, 59 S.Ct. 816 (1939), mandated acceptance of the collective rights or sophisticated collective rights model, and rejection of the individual rights or standard model, as a basis for construction of the Second Amendment. We disagree.

Only in United States v. Miller has the Supreme Court rendered any holding respecting the Second Amendment as applied to the federal government.(13) There, the indictment charged the defendants with transporting in interstate commerce, from Oklahoma to Arkansas, an unregistered "Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length" without having the required stamped written order, contrary to the National Firearms Act.(14) The defendants filed a demurrer challenging the facial validity of the indictment on the ground that "[t]he National Firearms Act . . . offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment," and "[t]he District Court held that section 11 of the Act [proscribing interstate transportation of a firearm, as therein defined, that lacked registration or a stamped order] violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment."

"These passages from Miller suggest that the militia, the assurance of whose continuation and the rendering possible of whose effectiveness Miller says were purposes of the Second Amendment, referred to the generality of the civilian male inhabitants throughout their lives from teenage years until old age and to their personally keeping their own arms, and not merely to individuals during the time (if any) they might be actively engaged in actual military service or only to those who were members of special or select units."

"There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."(24) Moreover, the Constitution's text likewise recognizes not only the difference between the "militia" and "the people" but also between the "militia" which has not been "call[ed] forth" and "the militia, when in actual service."(25)"

" Several other Supreme Court opinions speak of the Second Amendment in a manner plainly indicating that the right which it secures to "the people" is an individual or personal, not a collective or quasi-collective, right in the same sense that the rights secured to "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments, and the rights secured by the other provisions of the first eight amendments, are individual or personal, and not collective or quasi-collective, rights. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2805 (1992); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1937 (1977);(26) Robertson v. Baldwin, supra (see quotation in note 17 supra); Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 450-51, 15 L.Ed. 691, 705, 719 (1856). See also Justice Black's concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1456 (1968).(27) "

I could go on but these are all from just the first 20% +/-.

I don't imagine that as a product of a government who has never completely trusted it's citizens that they'll have any effect on you at all.

Funny though how you still haven't answered any of Evolvings questions. Again... no surprise.

Oh, would you like me to cut and paste a few of your posts that don't refer to the matter at hand? Since you don't appear to be able to remember them I'd be glad to do it for you.

Or should I be as big a pussy as you and write "Moderator" after each post where you have "strayed?"

If the cut and paste doesn't work for you I'd be glad to bump them to the top of the list of posts so you can find them easier. 

In reply to:
Evolving, think carefully before you repeat yourself five times again. Remember what happened last time you did it. You were too embarrassed to reply in that thread. I really don't want to expose your idiocy again.

---