<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Oh, by the way...</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:05:18 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Oh, by the way...</title>
            <description>Anybody notice that the Attorney General of the United States issued an official opinion dated August 24th, but not released until recently (probably to keep it out of the presidential campaign) that states: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. Really. They came out and said it. Of course, a new Administration could come out and &apos;unsay&apos; it - but it still carries weight I would think. Any lawyers out there? Newmax covered it - did anybody else? I musta been asleep at the...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:33:27 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from gunner on 2004-12-23</title>
            <description>
                I will admit that the report did put a nice smile on my face,
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10662</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10662</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:35:30 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Alan on 2004-12-23</title>
            <description>
                Interestingly, the area of discussion of &quot;the People&quot; does not contain a discussion of the contemporary meaning of collectivity at &quot;the Founding&quot;.  It really only uses internal logical analysis of the text.  If there is a shell game in the analysis, it may be there.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10659</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10659</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:36:38 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Alan on 2004-12-23</title>
            <description>
                I know nothing of your constitutional legalese but am unsure why the argument in section IIC is simply predicated on second half of the amendment being a  prefatory statement as opposed to an operative one.  

Our constitution up here in Canada is a &quot;living tree&quot; which means we look to meaning in the present and not the meaning of the drafters of a document except as a last resort.   Worrying about what folk understood at &quot;The Founding&quot; is a very weird concept to me for legal interpretation but one that is exactly in-line with how you would interpret literature.  It would be very pleasant to take on the hobby of US constitutional interpretation -   smacks of an opportunity to hunt out old dictionaries over pots of mulled sherry. 
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10658</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10658</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:30:52 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Dan Patterson on 2004-12-23</title>
            <description>
                &quot;...individuals generally...&quot;
Hell.  I&apos;m a General Individual.  Does that mean I command an Indivision???
Merry Christmas to all y&apos;all.  Good post on the 2nd Amendment clarification, and thank you for linking to Bill Lewis&apos; notes.  Chaplain Lewis is providing more than comfort and guidance to his flock and he deserves all the support the rest of us can muster.  Please visit his site and keep him and the rest of our military and support personnel in your prayers.

Merry Christmas.

Dan Patterson
Winston-Salem, NC 
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10656</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10656</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:02:09 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from BULLSEYE on 2004-12-22</title>
            <description>
                Great blog! Thanks for the &quot;good advice&quot; Hog On Ice from Coral Gables Florida. I reside in cracker country too...Fort Liquordale Florida. Yer pal BULLSEYE.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10627</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/12/oh_by_the_way.html#comment-10627</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:32:42 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


