Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ban them all or what?

Bubble Boy

Icepicks

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

I know I'll get in trouble for this...

Spoiler: show

Ban oleanders; fatal if ingested.

As long as I get to keep my light saber for the zombie apocalypse, I'm good.

I won't pick a choice on the poll. But what gets me when things like this come up is the way you hear people talk about guns as though the idea of the second Amendment is to establish the right to have a hunting weapon or a target shooting weapon or something like that. It's not. It's clearly referring to military arms. And it's not limited to guns.

And I also don't think it says that you have to be in a militia to enjoy the right. It refers to a militia as a reason for ensuring the right. Not as a condition of it.

To me, government has already gone way over the line in violating the Second Amendment and it went over the line a long time ago. If we don't like the Second Amendment we ought to go through the process and Amend the Constitution again to take the right to keep and bear arms away or at least modify it. But this stuff of playing games of "interpretation" to allow the Federal Government to take the right away if there's a good reason for it has got to stop.

It doesn't say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless there's a good reason for infringing." The period is right after "...not be infringed."

What part of "...not be infringed" do we not understand?

Just the one whose intent is to kill

JohnStOnge wrote:I won't pick a choice on the poll. But what gets me when things like this come up is the way you hear people talk about guns as though the idea of the second Amendment is to establish the right to have a hunting weapon or a target shooting weapon or something like that. It's not. It's clearly referring to military arms. And it's not limited to guns.

And I also don't think it says that you have to be in a militia to enjoy the right. It refers to a militia as a reason for ensuring the right. Not as a condition of it.

To me, government has already gone way over the line in violating the Second Amendment and it went over the line a long time ago. If we don't like the Second Amendment we ought to go through the process and Amend the Constitution again to take the right to keep and bear arms away or at least modify it. But this stuff of playing games of "interpretation" to allow the Federal Government to take the right away if there's a good reason for it has got to stop.

It doesn't say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless there's a good reason for infringing." The period is right after "...not be infringed."

What part of "...not be infringed" do we not understand?

Not sure what you're babbling on and on about
A huge majority of American understand the 2nd Amendment
otherwise it'd be gone by now / everybody take a deep breath

A huge majority of American understand the 2nd Amendment

Indeed.