At least he is honest enough to say that is the "right" way to accomplish what they want to do.

He is still wrong that it should be eliminated.

But remember how hard amending the constitution is, and that is not very damn likely to happen.

Great video Arc! Every time someone proposes something like this, and we see how hard a repeal would be, I can't help but think the founders were inspired by God

Jim

I have had some interesting conversations with friends who lean to the left about assault weapons. All have centered on who was the most formidable world power at the time of our American Revolution.

It was of course the British army and how were they armed ? The British were armed with muzzle loading muskets, the assault weapon of the time. All of a sudden they look stunned. Case closed.

Well shit, while Justice Stevens and his friends are at it, I’m sure they could find several things in the BoR to take a red pen to.

Certainly, not everybody should have free speech. They could also once-and-for-all clear up that whole freedom from religion thing.

Those guilty of violations of the new First Amendment and the abolished Second, shouldn’t be tried either, just sentenced by a tribunal.

What else...

I wish the antis would go this direction. At least it's the correct way of getting there and they will spend the next several decades working toward failure.

quote:

Originally posted by JR78:
Fucking lawyers, it's all the same liberal jibberish they learn in law school.

Screw you.

His argument is political, not legal. Furthermore, his understanding of history (which is not a subject in law school) is woefully misinformed. Finally, there are a great many of us who actually take our oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of X state seriously and are willing to look our fellow officers of the court square in the eye, regardless of station, and tell them that their opinion, when so egregiously incorrect, is irrelevant.

Try listening to half-literate mouth-breathers try to explain the nuances of anything that actually is a bona fide legal issue - especially when they’re on your side of the argument - and cringe at the inability to articulate their point at all adequately. Then you can complain to me about legal jibberish.

-Rob

"For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation."

I'm sorry I must have missed it, in the versions i have read, "shall NOT be infringed".

Moron thinks that the constitution was put in place to limit people, not government.