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.
The Framers had heavy cannon that could fire grape or canister, throw out a lot more ammo than a machine gun, faster, and do a lot more damage. They also had Greek-fire type weapons more dangerous than napalm, gunpowder bombs that could blow up entire buildings full of people, etc. And yet they wrote the 2nd amendment with no exceptions or restrictions whatsoever, while writing most other amendments with plenty of exceptions.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
We are talking about guns, not other weapons though. I mean it's no more likely for someone today to have a vulcan cannon in their house than it was for the average person to have a 24 pound howitzer back then. You are also forgetting something else that the cannon was a crew weapon, hardly useful for one person to yield. Your argument has a lot of holes in it.
Last edited by ~HecateWhisperCat~; 08-21-2013 at 10:15 PM..
And the Court could issue a completely different ruling on any particular issue at any time. The court has revisited issues and handed down different rulings multiple times.
For example because I haven't heard of such thing.
Quote:
The founders also intended the people to take an active role in government.
Ok.......
Quote:
So there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing with how any particular court interpreted any particular point in the constitution at any given time.
It's just a moot point. And clearly some people on here don't actually understand how constitutionality is determined.
Quote:
You can throw your tantrum and call people thick skulled and say there is no discussion left on the matter if you want, but you're only making yourself look desperate. Like the liberals who said dissent was patriotic and people were courageous for speaking truth to power when Bush was president, then claimed obstructing Obama was unpatriotic, irresponsible, and racist.
Not really. It's the truth and people don't want to hear it. The SCOTUS is the final say so.
That's not a legal analysis. The author, J. Niel Schulman, writes fiction and is not a legal scholar. From his bio at the bottom of the article:
Quote:
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS Twilight Zone episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination.
Furthermore, he's also writing from a partisan perspective:
Quote:
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA)
Perhaps I should find a counterpoint written by Mike Judge, creator of "Beavis and Butthead"?
"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, however only Federal institutions may possess flintlock arms and rifled barrels, while free men must only acquire matchlock smoothbore firearms and bladed weapons"
As if the Founding Fathers knew where technology would go in 200 years?
So the 1st amendment does not apply to the internet? or the 4th Amendment apply to cars, planes, hard drives ect...Liberty is meant to expend, never to stagnant and retract.
For all you leftwing *scholars*, do your damn homework on the difference in what certain words meant then vs. now. Well regulated in those days simply meant well-trained. The militia was the citizenry. It's all there for you superior intellectuals to use that great public education to EDUCATE yourselves.
In other words, the second amendment was saying a well trained-to-arms citizenry was necessary to keep themselves free of a tyrannical government like, oh, I don't know, ENGLAND??
God, you leftists are nothing if not ignorant and obtuse.
They cant think or understand, just feel..they can only see the world as they wish it was, not as it is...
So the 1st amendment does not apply to the internet? or the 4th Amendment apply to cars, planes, hard drives ect...Liberty is meant to expend, never to stagnant and retract.
Because that's our biggest concern in this country.
I know, Obama's brown shirts, etc, ad infinitum right wing blog/Michael Savage/survivalist stupidity. How do we manage to breed so many nuts here in the USA?
Tell the that to the people at Waco.....
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.
