Supreme Court refuses to block lawsuit against gun manufacturer brought by Sandy Hook families (lawyer, independence)
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.
Then explain if the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militias, just why does the first part of it go, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." So what's the matter? Were the writers of the U. S. Constitution just too liberal for you?
Because when the 2nd was written, EVERYONE was the Militia.
How about you explain why only in the 2nd amendment where it refers to "the people" does it not really mean "the people" ?
Can you point to another part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights where the founders used the phrase "the people" to refer to something other than the people?
Can you explain why, if the founders intended only the military to have guns, why did they put "the people" in the phrasing and why are there no historical accounts of them enforcing that by confiscating arms from the general citizenry?
what did Remington have to do with the shooting???..... especially when the sicko's mother is the one who bought the weapons legally (and was the first killed)
Then explain if the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with militias, just why does the first part of it go, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." So what's the matter? Were the writers of the U. S. Constitution just too liberal for you?
The Founders were LIBERALS, but the same as you and today's Progressives. They were anti big Government, that's why all the restriction on government. All able bodied men are in the unorganized Militia, that's why it is mentioned. The reason there is a comma after the Militia statement then it says , THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (not the Government) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, you just think were are a bunch of GUN NUTS, right?
Was the single Mom that recently successfully protected herself and family with an AR-15 a GUN NUT? You're just a hypocrite.
The Supreme Court does not hear FRIVOLOUS law suits. The lower court will throw this out. The shooter STOLE THE FIREARM, so how was it marketing as he was NOT THE BUYER.
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.
