Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have to answer no to both points. The knockout game is a rampage of sorts and no guns are involved.
Explosives would be more successful - look at all of the suicide bombings people do.
Penn Gillette is not my favorite mouthpiece but he hit this nail square on the head. This should be required viewing for anyone not familiar with the Constitution.
98% of Americans?
Do you realize the 2nd amendment says nothing about individuals having the right to own guns? It talks about the rights for organized militias to bear arms, under the circumstances that were in place back then where we had a fragile government and those militias were necessary to protect ourselves from foreign invaders.
So get it? Sort of like having a little military, where- within the confines of that militia- guns can/should be available.
Before wading into 13 pages of BS to get to this..
This is the amendment in full.
Amendment II 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.
The entire amendment addresses firearms in America. It points out the militia needs them and goes on to say the people - citizens - have the inalienable right to keep(own) and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.
How much easier is it to understand?
Why does the left try to interject something that isn't within that 27 word sentence?
Before wading into 13 pages of BS to get to this..
This is the amendment in full.
Amendment II 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.
The entire amendment addresses firearms in America. It points out the militia needs them and goes on to say the people - citizens - have the inalienable right to keep(own) and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.
How much easier is it to understand?
Why does the left try to interject something that isn't within that 27 word sentence?
It is a simple concept to understand.
And arms is short for armory which I do not have a right to have now do I?
Presumably an amendment can be amended. Why should it be written in stone, if the effect does more harm than good? What suited the time may not suit the present. If enough people have the will, crux, change it.
Presumably an amendment can be amended. Why should it be written in stone, if the effect does more harm than good? What suited the time may not suit the present. If enough people have the will, crux, change it.
Oh my goodness. Why can't these kind of things stop???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
