![]() |
|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
|
I like your analogy, Dana, and I agree with your balanced view on the subject.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |||
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
What was the wording of the original "2nd Amendment ratified by the States ? To wit: Quote:
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are worded differently. A great deal is made of the Federalist Papers regarding the intentions of our Forefathers. John Jay's writings there on the 2nd Amendment (before ratification) specifically discuss the need to give up some "rights" in order to gain other benefits gained from the new federal government. The "militia" of our Forefathers is not one of individuals with guns, but of independent (non-federal) communities formally calling up individuals, even to the point of a draft to meet quotas, to defend against foreign forces. --- Second, our Forefathers could not have envisioned the machine gun, or much of any gun we now call an "automatic firearm", which came 50 to 100 years after ratification... from Wikipedia: The History of the Firearm Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Yeah, that's all interesting, but the Supreme Court already removed the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment. So a new Supreme Court would have to change that ruling to bring militias back into it, and then go on to do what you suggest.
The Wikipedia summary of the Supreme Court's holding in D.C. v. Heller: Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Exactly.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|