|
|
|
|
#1
11-20-2007, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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.“ That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007. 
|
|
#2
11-20-2007, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states: “ 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.“ That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007. [/ QUOTE ] If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies.
|
|
#3
11-20-2007, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states: “ 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.“ That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007. [/ QUOTE ] If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies. [/ QUOTE ] It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point).
|
|
#4
11-20-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states: “ 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.“ That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007. [/ QUOTE ] If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies. [/ QUOTE ] It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point). [/ QUOTE ] WTF? why on earth should it not? Why would you ever advocate removing right to self preservation and self rule from the constitution? I get it, your scared of guns and don't understand them. Lets get objective here and realize how this country was even founded in the first place.
|
|
#5
11-20-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states: “ 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.“ That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007. [/ QUOTE ] If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies. [/ QUOTE ] It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point). [/ QUOTE ] whoa whoa whoa. If we're going to start actually using normal reading comprehension and stop playing games with semantics then there should at least be an announcement in the sticky or something.
|
|
#6
11-20-2007, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
WTF? why on earth should it not? Why would you ever advocate removing right to self preservation and self rule from the constitution? I get it, your scared of guns and don't understand them. Lets get objective here and realize how this country was even founded in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] Relax there, I was just trying to clarify the man's point. I support the right to gun ownership.
|
|
#7
11-21-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states: “ 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.“ That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007. [/ QUOTE ] If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies. [/ QUOTE ] It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point). [/ QUOTE ] Which is the whole point of the amendment process! Use it!
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
