killerzX said:
i made the thread of course its going to have my opionion in it. i then gave a link to a news article with their take on it. but i only cared about mine so i wrote my opinion.
I was just saying, clearly seperate the story quote/link and your opinion.
if your qualms were that that wasnt a clear distiction of my opinion and the linked article, i apoligize.
as for the bold thatt o is unconstitutional. the constitution isnt about hunting. its about defending ourselves from tyranny whether that come from an individual or the government. citizens should be as a well armed as the government. even so guns have numerous more purposes and uses than say a nuke.
The words are ambiguous. You know that. The most obvious reading of the words doesn't tell us anything about gun laws.
the words of the 2 amendment? no its pretty clear
"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" meaning inorder to be able to form a militia, People are garunteed the right to arms.
penn jillete on the 2A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MATTUiz2TKc
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MATTUiz2TKc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
and the constitution cant be wrong, its our laws.
No. Laws can be wrong.
morally? if so i agree.
if you dont like it, ammend it. until then our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
According to ONE, and not even the most literal, interpretation. The Court is making a politically motivated reading, that is undeniable.
according to the exact words of the 2A
|
