Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller



 
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old July 25th, 2009, 9:03 pm
rigdoctorbri's Avatar
rigdoctorbri  Male.gif rigdoctorbri is offline
Purveyor of Prophesy
 
Joined: 4962 days
Location: Arguing with myself
Age: 47
Posts: 2,336
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

1. Do you agree or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling? Why?

I agree with it. The spirit of the Second Amendment goes back to a time when the government (King George III and his governors) restricted individuals rights to keep arms, out of a fear of insurrection. Since our system was established in such a way as to be designed so that no one should be fearful of the government, but that the government should be in fear of the people, I believe the restriction of firearms should not be limited.

As time progresses there should be a line drawn. For example certain inherently dangerous items, like unstable explosives, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons must be restricted. Firearms, on the other hand, should be the right of the people.

On what level is another matter. Certainly not at the Federal or State levels, but I think it should be fine for a city to restrict them. After all, one can always move out of town. I don't think a blanket ban on firearms is constitutional though.

2. What are the likely ramifications of this decision on other cities with firearms restrictions, such as San Francisco or Chicago?

I haven't looked at San Francisco's law, but Chicago's isn't exactly blanket banning.

3. The Court seemed to think that some restrictions on firearms were permissible under the Second Amendment, leaving it to future cases to flesh out the specifics. What do you predict will be the outcome?

7 Day waiting periods and background checks are reasonable. Those who don't respect the law, don't deserve to have the tools that allow them to enforce their breakage. Restrictions on their carrying are fine, although I am in favor of allowing people carry concealed weapons, but that should be a community issue, not a State or Federal one.

4. What do you predict the practical real-world consequences of this case will be?

It will depend on how the Constitution is applied to similar but unique laws, and further testing by lawyers.

5. (New question): With Obama in the White House and a Democratically-controlled Congress, what direction do you think gun rights and restrictions will take?

I don't think there will be much difference. They may pass legislation, perhaps even Constitutionally questionable, but as there won't be much change in the political makeup of the Supreme Court, similar issues will probably net close to the same results. Should a Supreme Court Justice unexpectedly resign or pass away, then the balance will shift. Until then, we should expect more 5-4 decisions on the Second Amendment, and how it applies. Keep an eye on Kennedy for these issues. I think he will be the swing vote.


__________________
Special thanks to storyteller for the Banner
Thanks to all who voted for me in the Through The Trapdoor: Fourth Challenge!

When faced with a choice between two evils, I always choose the one I have never tried before.
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old July 27th, 2009, 10:01 pm
FlamingRed  Undisclosed.gif FlamingRed is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3853 days
Posts: 51
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
I don't have much faith that people who build private arsenals are up to anything good. I think the DHS report, under both Bush and Obama, was spot-on with the dangers implicit in this arms race in the private sector.

ETA:

I forgot to quote Plimpy, but Red has already done so... so for a great post!
What exactly constitutes an "arsenal" in your definition? Some people collect dolls, some people collect rifles. Just because a person has a safe in their home with rifles they use for sport or just to look at/tinker with does not mean they are up to no good.

So how can any one document/amendement/declaration restrict the "baddies" without infringing upon the perfectly law-abiding people?


__________________


Proud member of
  #43  
Old July 27th, 2009, 10:55 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingRed View Post
What exactly constitutes an "arsenal" in your definition? Some people collect dolls, some people collect rifles. Just because a person has a safe in their home with rifles they use for sport or just to look at/tinker with does not mean they are up to no good.
Dolls don't kill. I stand by what I said earlier. Anyone who buys guns "just to look at/tinker with" fits the earlier category I described. A safe full of guns just to sit around and look at? That's just weird.

Quote:
So how can any one document/amendement/declaration restrict the "baddies" without infringing upon the perfectly law-abiding people?
One can't do the job. Obviously. I would prefer that the whole issue of gun ownership be updated to allow for realities on the ground today. If that DHS report hasn't caused more of us to take a serious look at what people are doing with guns, I don't know what will. An argument could be made for dismissing the Holocaust Museum shooter, the Muslim convert who killed a GI, and the man who assassinated the abortion doctor as wacko loners with serious psychological problems. That wouldn't be true, though, for the dozen or so law-abiding men who shot their wives and kids and then committed suicide. There seems to be a thin line between law-abiding folks and folks who just snap and take the law into their own hands. Those families were all law-abiding citizens before they ended up dead. The ease of obtaining firearms in this country played right into their deaths.

I have a different take than Chris on the NRA's big push to boost its membership and donation base by promulgating a lie. To me, it was beyond despicable to rattle a host of gullible people who were already upset by the election last November.

FactCheck.OrgSummary

A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."


Believing something doesn't make it so.

Truer words were never spoken.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #44  
Old July 28th, 2009, 12:41 am
FlamingRed  Undisclosed.gif FlamingRed is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3853 days
Posts: 51
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
Dolls don't kill. I stand by what I said earlier. Anyone who buys guns "just to look at/tinker with" fits the earlier category I described. A safe full of guns just to sit around and look at? That's just weird.
This is the error in your thinking -- you think it's weird, therefore the freedom should be restricted. What about people who think homosexuality is weird? Should that be illegal? There ARE people who enjoy the machinery of a gun and the history of weaponry, and there is nothing wrong with this interest. Again, just because you think it's weird doesn't make it wrong.


__________________


Proud member of
  #45  
Old July 28th, 2009, 12:47 am
leah49's Avatar
leah49  Female.gif leah49 is offline
Ron's Pygmy Puff
 
Joined: 4108 days
Location: Weasley's Wizard Wheezes
Age: 36
Posts: 6,390
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

My aunt has a safe full of guns that she does not use. She recieved most of them from her uncle's will. I think two are her brother's. Does this make her bad or evil to own them? Does it make her weird?


__________________



I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:14

My Graphics|Aftermath|Goodreads|My Blog
I may disagree with you politically, religiously, and/or on Snape but that doesn't mean I dislike you.
  #46  
Old July 28th, 2009, 1:00 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingRed View Post
This is the error in your thinking -- you think it's weird, therefore the freedom should be restricted. What about people who think homosexuality is weird? Should that be illegal? There ARE people who enjoy the machinery of a gun and the history of weaponry, and there is nothing wrong with this interest. Again, just because you think it's weird doesn't make it wrong.
I don't buy your logic. Sorry, I just can't.

Think about Iran and the frenzy some on the right have about that country developing a nuclear weapon. It seems pretty duplicitous, to me, to fiercely clamor for bombs to drop on a foreign nation while the citizenry of the United States is being encouraged to engage in an arms race.

I was trying to be nice when I used the word "weird." Guns kill people. Drugs kill people, too, but they at least are monitored and regulated. I think gunowners should also be under some form of accountability. There are certainly enough dead victims to warrant greater control over the things.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #47  
Old July 28th, 2009, 1:05 am
Voldemorts8thHorcrux's Avatar
Voldemorts8thHorcrux  Female.gif Voldemorts8thHorcrux is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 4590 days
Location: just took over world,on throne
Age: 23
Posts: 5,710
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Some people like collecting weaponry like others like collecting stamps and postcards. There's nothing wrong with that. Of course it's still possible to put restrictions on them, like maybe take out a component of the gun to make it sure it can't work, but i still dont think it's that necessary. However, I DO think there definitely should be laws about the guns being properly protected in the event of a thief stealing them and using them for bad things. Stuff like a safe vaulted to the floor or protected by locks, which believe it or not, there are people who don't take the proper precautions like that.

Anyways, the point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of citizens and maintain the balance between government power and the power of the people, like checks and balances. The point of the second amendment IMHO is to make sure that everyday people can protect themselves.


__________________


Official Member of the Jacq Triumvirate

My Deviantart Account

Voldemort Feels Pretty, My animated music video for "I feel Pretty" Featuring LORD VOLDEMORT!

My original story: Teeter Totter (Has absolutely nothing to do with playgrounds)


  #48  
Old July 28th, 2009, 1:24 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Oy! It would be a whole lot easier to protect ourselves if there weren't so damned many guns in circulation, eh?


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #49  
Old July 28th, 2009, 1:32 am
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
 
Joined: 4316 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
Oy! It would be a whole lot easier to protect ourselves if there weren't so damned many guns in circulation, eh?
Herein lies the conundrum for a lot of people
-if there were no guns in circulation, by definition, there would be no gun crime; however:
-in order to protect oneself from a real or perceived threat of someone else with a gun, one may want to have a gun themselves.

IE: People need guns because other people have guns. Yet, as a society, we'd be safer with less guns, but people would feel less secure.

Myself, as I've noted before, I favor the banning of a few weapons that have no use in target or sport shooting or in basic home defense. The weapons I have in mind were designed for war purposes and while I admit it might be cool to own one, I don't think that it's really necessary for the protection / hunting / target shooting. I don't want to take away any (non-felon or legally insane) person's right to own the latter types of weapons. And I don't see it as violating the literal text of the second amendment to ban the weapons I have in mind, since I'd still allow many, many types.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #50  
Old July 28th, 2009, 1:56 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

I get a lot of hate mail in the course of my job. Some of these wackos are like Gladys Gudgeon, Gilderoy Lockhart's admiring fan, and write weekly. Even several times a week in one recent case. My husband taught me to use a gun many years ago and I passed a marksman's test with ease. I imagine I could still shoot straight, provided I don't have to shoot too far.

He has been urging me for a year to buy one for protection, but I'm never going to do it. I refuse to live my life in fear.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #51  
Old July 28th, 2009, 10:46 pm
Voldemorts8thHorcrux's Avatar
Voldemorts8thHorcrux  Female.gif Voldemorts8thHorcrux is offline
Secret Keeper
 
Joined: 4590 days
Location: just took over world,on throne
Age: 23
Posts: 5,710
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

about the whole guns don't kill people, people kill people thing, there lies part of the problem. Theoretically, taking away guns would mostly only mean that people will use different forms of violence, such as fist fights, knives, etc. Its part of human nature to feel stronger with a weapon and a gun ban won't change that. The violent people will always find ways to hurt, maim and kill, but it will hurt those who aren't violent by taking away their weapon and make them more vunerable. A lot of people aren't very strong physically but guns put people on a more equal playing field


__________________


Official Member of the Jacq Triumvirate

My Deviantart Account

Voldemort Feels Pretty, My animated music video for "I feel Pretty" Featuring LORD VOLDEMORT!

My original story: Teeter Totter (Has absolutely nothing to do with playgrounds)


  #52  
Old July 28th, 2009, 11:50 pm
Redhart's Avatar
Redhart  Female.gif Redhart is offline
Ultimate Dog Lover
 
Joined: 4448 days
Location: The Land of Shake n' Bake
Posts: 3,025
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Well yes, and I hear that argument...but there are other considerations. For instance, the difference between a mentally deranged gunman being able to get a rifle as opposed to how much more damage he could do if he were to attack with an assault rifle that fires at a much higher pace and could kill many more people in the same amount of time.

There are the safety regulations of proper handling and storage to cut down uneducated accidental deaths and to keep guns out of the hands of children. Some of that is, of course, the parent's responsibility. But some can be mitigated through legislation, as well, to educate those same parents and hold them responsible for safety in a home with children. Having dumb parents is hardly the child's fault.

Better tracking of sales and ways of tagging firearms that help police track down guns that do find themselves in criminal hands.

So yes, people kill...but safety, education and some common sense legislation isn't a bad thing to keep both malicious and accidental death down and help hold those who disregard our laws responsible under the law.

So yes, I don't want to see persons like myself who would simply like to do some legal hunting to put food in the pot for my family penalized because some idiot gave a 10 yr unsupervised access to a gun and the kid now is behind a bush on the other side of the field about to discharge it accidentally and hurt himself (or me)...or shoot my dog.

And if that does happen...I want to see the laws enforced and be strong enough to do so, so that we don't have to penalize people who ARE responsible.


__________________
The Bad Girls of Hogwarts!
NEVER underestimate an old witch!



"Angels fly because they take themselves lightly."
  #53  
Old July 29th, 2009, 12:33 am
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

I am just as concerned about ideologues like the Holocaust Museum shooter, and the wacko who killed the abortion doctor. The kid who shot and killed students at Virginia Tech, or the D.C. sniper pair. And those dozen or so husbands and fathers who killed their wives and children, and turned the weapon on themselves. These last were likely desperate people with financial problems. They had no business with guns. The system, as it is today regarding gun ownership, failed those women and their children.

ETA:

Oh, my! E.J. Dionne has a column called Put Up Or Shut Up Time, in which he challenges NRA and Second Amendment supporters in Congress to "dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol building."

If the American people are to be encouraged to carry guns when visiting a national park, why won't those same legislators who wrote and approved that bill allow the same privilege on Capitol Hill?

Dionne"I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their loyalty to the National Rifle Association and have decided they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence. If they believe that, why don't they live by it?

"Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the seat of our democracy?

"Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted earlier this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn't Congress set an example in its own workplace?"


That's a bill I would support.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.

Last edited by purplehawk; July 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm.
  #54  
Old July 30th, 2009, 7:00 am
KDOG  Male.gif KDOG is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 5345 days
Location: Boston
Posts: 555
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Gun control advocacy is a load of steaming poo. Firstly the advocates say that the 2nd ammendment mentions that only a well organized militia may have the right to bear arms. WRONG. It says that a militia is necessary to prevent the government from overstepping their bounds and infringing on the liberty of the people and thus individuals have the right to bear arms. It only mentions the world militia because its saying that the people need to be ready to take up arms against the government if it gets out control. That argument is meaningless by the advocates. The right to bear arms as modern anti-gun control people see it is precisely the same as how the founders meant it so.

The argument about toddlers or children finding a loaded unlocked gun in the house and shooting themselves or someone else is feeble as well. Thats pure irresponsibility and foolishness by the parent or guardian. One may say that irresponsibility is why we need to implement gun control however its the same as any other dangerous object you may leave within reach of the kid. Just because some parents are idiotic enough not to put their guns away in a secure form of containment, locked, unloaded, with the safety on that shouldn't mean the huge majority who are wise with guns should be at fault.

People have been killing people forever, implement gun control and people find other ways to kill each other. Murder in history was so so much more prevalent even without guns. Being able to defend yourself more easily is GOOD and I don't want to hear about "just call the police" yada yada yada. Sometimes you dont have time to find the people who do have the guns to come to the rescue.

And say what you want, the reason for the second ammendment is first and foremost to be able to protect our liberty when the government tries (and it will go off the deep end eventually) to take it away. Its not absurd to be wary about the government. The founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms for [whenever it happens], the next revolution so we wont be completely helpless versus an uncontrollable government. It may not happen in my lifetime, but its important to pass the right on to the next generations for when internal conflict flares.

Oh yeah one SMALL thing. The people who do kill people wth guns are the people who wouldn't give a damn about any gun laws. Gang members aren't going to follow any gun control law!



Last edited by KDOG; July 30th, 2009 at 7:17 am.
  #55  
Old July 30th, 2009, 7:43 am
SybillOnWheels  Male.gif SybillOnWheels is offline
Banned
 
Joined: 3490 days
Location: United States
Age: 31
Posts: 166
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Gun control advocacy is a load of steaming poo. Firstly the advocates say that the 2nd ammendment mentions that only a well organized militia may have the right to bear arms. WRONG. It says that a militia is necessary to prevent the government from overstepping their bounds and infringing on the liberty of the people and thus individuals have the right to bear arms. It only mentions the world militia because its saying that the people need to be ready to take up arms against the government if it gets out control.
...Which is why the second amendment is extremely outdated. Let's say that the government oversteps its boundaries to the extreme, and the American people revolt, with their handguns and hunting rifles to boot. How well do you think they'd fare against a nuclear-capable government?

The Constitution was drafted by men who only had knowledge of 18th century warfare. The patriots who had just won the Revolution against the British were armed with basically the same sort of weapons that their opponents carried. Revolts back then actually stood a chance, and the Founding Fathers wished to pave the way for future revolutionaries, should the new American government become just as corrupt as that of the British Empire. Therefore, the second amendment was drafted.

In modern America, however, such revolutions have no chance of succeeding. A band of revolutionaries is not going to overthrow today's US government. Grievances and disagreements are settled politically, not violently. Therefore, the second amendment, considering the way that it is worded, is moot and makes no logical sense whatsoever. If people want to amend it to say "Citizens have the right to bear arms --- period," then fine, but the reason the Founding Father's gave for including the amendment is, nowadays, illogical.

Laws, policies, and traditions should only continue to be practiced as long as they have relevance to modern society. If we look at the second amendment reasonably from today's perspective, then the average citizen of the United States of America should have the right to own a nuclear weapon.

The second amendment is only logical if you're living in the 18th century.


  #56  
Old July 30th, 2009, 10:07 am
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5491 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDOG View Post
Gun control advocacy is a load of steaming poo. Firstly the advocates say that the 2nd ammendment mentions that only a well organized militia may have the right to bear arms. WRONG. It says that a militia is necessary to prevent the government from overstepping their bounds and infringing on the liberty of the people and thus individuals have the right to bear arms.
Just where is that written?


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
  #57  
Old July 30th, 2009, 2:09 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wab View Post
Just where is that written?
I don't know. It does say this, though:

Second AmendmentA 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.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #58  
Old July 30th, 2009, 2:29 pm
flimseycauldron's Avatar
flimseycauldron  Female.gif flimseycauldron is offline
Zonko's Employee
 
Joined: 4284 days
Location: New England
Posts: 3,553
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by SybillOnWheels View Post
The second amendment is only logical if you're living in the 18th century.
I don't understand this arguement. It seems to be implying that the entire Constitution is only logical if you're living in the past.

For me the Constitution is a framework. We can build on to it, twist it, play with it but you can not take things away. Once you do that it makes the whole frame unstable.


__________________
  #59  
Old July 30th, 2009, 2:54 pm
purplehawk's Avatar
purplehawk  Female.gif purplehawk is offline
Renegade
 
Joined: 5592 days
Location: Buckeye Country
Age: 69
Posts: 28,639
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

The vast majority of the Constitution is timeless. The Second Amendment just isn't one of the timeless bits.


__________________



"A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon."

~ President Bill Clinton ~
August 28, 2013
50th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"


All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any political or government body.
  #60  
Old July 30th, 2009, 5:36 pm
Wab's Avatar
Wab  Undisclosed.gif Wab is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5491 days
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 15,280
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Quote:
Originally Posted by flimseycauldron View Post
For me the Constitution is a framework. We can build on to it, twist it, play with it but you can not take things away. Once you do that it makes the whole frame unstable.
It survived the repeal of the 18th amendment.


__________________
A patriot is someone who wants the best for his country, including the best laws and the best ideals. It's something other people should call you -- you shouldn't call yourself that. People who call themselves patriots are usually liars. -- Donald Woods

You got what anybody gets . . . You got a lifetime. -- Death of the Endless
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 3:23 pm.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.