Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Options
1…68101112

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Jawgap wrote: »
    No it wouldn't - the US Constitution is amended through resolutions voted by individual State legislatures, not by referendum.

    Two thirds of both houses of congress must agree to a proposal to amend - or the legislatures of two thirds of the States can agree a proposal to amend.

    The proposal then goes to the states for ratification - usually there's a time limit - and for it to be accepted (and the Constitution amended) 75% of the states must ratify it.

    In the case of the second amendment - good luck with tha'

    the above isnt strictly true. amendments to the constitution can also be made at a national convention convened for this purpose. This has never been done, and is unlikely to ever be used, but it is an alternative way for amendments to be made. but as you said "in the case of the second amendment - good luck with that"


  • Options
    #213
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Which doesn't change the fact that we all know already that it takes a democratic decision to change the constitution and state laws. You're not even attempting to refute this.
    Also a separate argument, whether such a plebiscite would succeed.
    Anything anybody posted you'd care to comment on?

    I'm not attempting to refute anything, just pointing out that the US Constitution is different to the Irish one. States, not the citizen are the 'unit' in the Republic in the US, therefore it's states that amend the Constitution, choose the President etc

    So no plebiscite needed.....
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    ......
    I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
    Are you confused by this yourself?

    Given the number of legislators that would need to be 'paid off' and / or the number of people in support of the second amendment rights - it remains, at this time, an impractical proposition to remove or modify that element of their Constitution.

    Guns are a cultural phenomenon in the US, they can't be legislated away, nor can politics or the law provide the answer. It'll take a seismic cultural shift to see gun ownership reduced in a meaningful away or some technological shift that renders them irrelevant or marginalised - in the same way horse culture yielded to the culture of the internal combustion engine.


  • Options
    #214
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    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.
    That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
    Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?


  • Options
    #215
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Beano wrote: »
    the above isnt strictly true. amendments to the constitution can also be made at a national convention convened for this purpose. This has never been done, and is unlikely to ever be used, but it is an alternative way for amendments to be made. but as you said "in the case of the second amendment - good luck with that"

    That is true, but its the state legislatures who select the delegates who would attend such a convention and, like the electoral college used to elect the President, the legislatures could instruct their delegation how to vote.

    Likewise, the votes would be on a state by state basis, not on a delegate basis - in the same way the President would be elected if the electoral college was tied. In other words, California, regardless of population gets one vote as does Idaho, Delaware etc


  • Options
    #216
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I'm not attempting to refute anything, just pointing out that the US Constitution is different to the Irish one. States, not the citizen are the 'unit' in the Republic in the US, therefore it's states that amend the Constitution, choose the President etc
    Yes, but this is democracy. We know what democracy is. Stating "You do know what a democracy is?", which is what this conversation is about, isn't refuted by saying it's done this democratic way or this democratic way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Jawgap wrote: »
    That is true, but its the state legislatures who select the delegates who would attend such a convention and, like the electoral college used to elect the President, the legislatures could instruct their delegation how to vote.

    Likewise, the votes would be on a state by state basis, not on a delegate basis - in the same way the President would be elected if the electoral college was tied. In other words, California, regardless of population gets one vote as does Idaho, Delaware etc

    oh absolutely. but i thought i would mention as i could think of a few people who would use it to bash you over the head.


  • Options
    #218
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
    Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

    No, if you read around it and particularly the Federalist Papers you'll see the idea of a militia was to act as a counterweight to the Government and the standing army.

    The idea being that the 'crown' (in the governmental sense) would find it more difficult to arbitrarily infringe the rights of the citizen if the citizens were armed.

    Everyone is in the militia, except the salaried officers appointed by the states - they may command the militia, but strictly speaking are regarded to be apart from it.

    Incidentally, the framers of the US Constitution also envisaged a relatively small Federal Army (1% of the total population or 4% of the military age population).


  • Options
    #219
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Compo Culture alive and well it seems.

    Knives are strictly speaking weapons yet we routinely by and sell them as cooking and eating utensils. If some-one stabbed me or my loved ones with a kitchen knife could I sue the manufacturer for completely legally selling it to a member of the public just because that member of the public chose to use it in a violent manner? Of course not, I'd be laughed out of court.

    This case is exactly the same.


  • Options
    #220
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Everyone is in the militia, except the salaried officers appointed by the states - they may command the militia, but strictly speaking are regarded to be apart from it.
    Ah come one now! How does current gun ownership in the US fit with the wording "well regulated militia"?
    I notice none of the civilian gun ownership advocates seem to be able to quote this amendment in its entirety, seemingly always forgetting to mention this pesky first half of it!


  • Options
    #221
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Compo Culture alive and well it seems.

    Knives are strictly speaking weapons yet we routinely by and sell them as cooking and eating utensils. If some-one stabbed me or my loved ones with a kitchen knife could I sue the manufacturer for completely legally selling it to a member of the public just because that member of the public chose to use it in a violent manner? Of course not, I'd be laughed out of court.

    This case is exactly the same.
    No denying that. This attempted court proceeding is a load of cobblers...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Yes, but this is democracy. We know what democracy is. Stating "You do know what a democracy is?", which is what this conversation is about, isn't refuted by saying it's done this democratic way or this democratic way.

    But it's not truly democratic - the US is a republic, like us but unlike us it's federal.

    You could hold a vote tomorrow and win it but still be over-ruled because it's the states who vote. Therefore, California, even if it votes overwhelmingly in favour of amending the Constitution can be checked by Idaho if they vote against it.

    John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to become president by 10% but was nonetheless elected president because he carried the electoral college vote - an in more recent times GW Bush lost the popular vote (by about 0.5%) and still became president.


  • Options
    #223
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    But it's not truly democratic - the US is a republic, like us but unlike us it's federal.

    You could hold a vote tomorrow and win it but still be over-ruled because it's the states who vote. Therefore, California, even if it votes overwhelmingly in favour of amending the Constitution can be checked by Idaho if they vote against it.

    John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to become president by 10% but was nonetheless elected president because he carried the electoral college vote - an in more recent times GW Bush lost the popular vote (by about 0.5%) and still became president.
    That's still a debate about the form of democracy, not whether the US is a democracy or not.
    In any case, this is coming closer to arguing against the original poster!
    MadsL wrote: »
    You do know what a democracy is, right?


  • Options
    #224
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Ah come one now! How does current gun ownership in the US fit with the wording "well regulated militia"?
    I notice none of the civilian gun ownership advocates seem to be able to quote this amendment in its entirety, seemingly always forgetting to mention this pesky first half of it!

    It probably doesn't - and it's probably not what was intended when the document was written, but it's their laws and traditions.

    The framers also thought the government should, unlike European governments of the time, trust its citizenry with arms - again you can't really blame for failing to anticipate the growth of the country and the technological advances that would follow.


  • Options
    #225
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    This is a ridiculous law suit. I'm not a lawyer but I believe it has zero chance of succeeding.

    Guns can be used safely and legally. So when somebody uses one illegally, how is it the fault of the gun manufacturer? It's the fault of the person who used it illegally.

    Cars can be used safely and legally. So when somebody drives a car into a crowd of pedestrians on purpose (illegally), you can't blame the car manufacturer, it's the fault of the person who used it illegally.

    I have sympathy with the families who have lost loved ones, but they are wasting their time with this law suit.


  • Options
    #226
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    MadsL wrote: »
    A friend of mine lives at the end of this road...it gets far worse than this at the end too. When I visit him, I couldn't safely get there without a 4x4.

    Looks like something from Fallout.


  • Options
    #227
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    MadsL wrote: »
    A friend of mine lives at the end of this road...it gets far worse than this at the end too. When I visit him, I couldn't safely get there without a 4x4.
    You wouldn't need a 4x4 to get up that road, although, I do actually part own an American pick up, dodge dakota and it's constantly getting stuck on humps and bumps any normal car would have no problem getting through.


    Come now - it is not like people are not shot on the streets of Dublin.
    Not many, we haven't had any one going on a shooting spree just yet. It's almost entirely restricted to gang violence.

    Polluted? Is Ireland also polluted with some 200 thousand plus firearms?
    No, I know of only a handful of people with guns. One guy exterminates vermin for people (rabbits are breeding like rabbits around here), another has a single barrel shotgun, he grew up on a farm but these days just just clay pigeon shooting every few months. The rest are farmers that go on scheduled fox hunting outings with the gun club.

    Lol. You really should read some North America history. England, France, Spain, Sweden and Holland were all US colonial powers. As a side note technically the Irish nation is still at war with Canada. In fact the Seven Year's War actually started in North America.
    "has just" is missing from the statement I made, I'm saying Ireland is recently out of a civil war, Americans haven't had war on their soil in a long long time .
    "Americans" didn't have to suffer in the same way Ireland did. Have you any notion of what Native Americans suffered at the hands of Europeans?
    That stayed in America and became Americans? Yes, I've heard all about it.


    I see. There was no armed rebellion in Ireland?
    Many failed rebellions over many hundreds of years. Ireland didn't really win it's freedom with guns, we couldn't when the greatest Empire of the time was right next door. We beat them at their own game of politicking


    You are aware that there are 19 million military veterans currently in the US, 7 million Vietnam-era veterans, 5.2 million who served during the Gulf War Era, 1.3 million who served in World War II; and 2.1 million who served in the Korean War.

    That's one in seventeen Americans who are combat vets.
    Those are guys sent to other countries, America wasn't under any actual treat (bar ww2 and even then) those are trained soldiers sent to invade another country not quite the same as ordinary civilians being blown up or fighting in the streets, America hasn't had to suffer that since it's civil war.


  • Options
    #228
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Another amazingly inept non-point.
    I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
    Are you confused by this yourself?

    Do you propose the US remove the right to bear arms by non-democratic means?
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's the actual ratified wording of the 2nd amendment.
    Does the US still need a regulated militia to ensure it's continuing existence? If you are not in a regulated militia, where does your automatic right to bear arms come from under the constitution?

    Yeah, we have done this to death on boards and still you don't get it. I'll let Penn and Teller have a crack at getting you to follow the point of the 2A.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Ah come one now! How does current gun ownership in the US fit with the wording "well regulated militia"?
    I notice none of the civilian gun ownership advocates seem to be able to quote this amendment in its entirety, seemingly always forgetting to mention this pesky first half of it!
    Do you know what a militia is?
    Did you know militias still operate in the US as separate armed forces to the US Army?
    You seem confused about it. Perhaps I can guide you to the words of George Mason, a co-author of the Bill of Rights who had this to say on the subject.
    A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.

    Feel free to read him further, he explains it pretty plainly, including his views on the danger of standing armies and why the rights of militias as distinct from standing armies should be protected.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason
    ScumLord wrote: »
    You wouldn't need a 4x4 to get up that road, although, I do actually part own an American pick up, dodge dakota and it's constantly getting stuck on humps and bumps any normal car would have no problem getting through.

    At the risk of being directed to the motoring forum, I drive the same truck and I've never got it stuck on "humps and bumps" and I've done plenty of off-road driving. Perhaps you should "jack it up" and risk having it called a toy.

    Of course my original point was that some people's "toys" are other people's tools, a fact which you don't seem to grasp when it comes to firearms.


  • Options
    #229
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you propose the US remove the right to bear arms by non-democratic means?
    Why, are you suggesting this? Nobody else has. Yet you seemingly felt the need to announce to us all that the US is a democracy as if anybody said any different.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you know what a militia is?
    Did you know militias still operate in the US as separate armed forces to the US Army?
    You seem confused about it. Perhaps I can guide you to the words of George Mason, a co-author of the Bill of Rights who had this to say on the subject.
    And how many gun owners in the US are part of these "well regulated militias" of which you speak? The highest estimates I can find are under 50,000. Overall gun ownership? About 100,000,000.
    Again, have you anything relevant to add here other than pointless definitions of trivial tangential factoids?


  • Options
    #230
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Why, are you suggesting this? Nobody else has. Yet you seemingly felt the need to announce to us all that the US is a democracy as if anybody said any different.
    And how many gun owners in the US are part of these "well regulated militias" of which you speak? The highest estimates I can find are under 50,000. Overall gun ownership? About 100,000,000.
    Again, have you anything relevant to add here other than pointless definitions of trivial tangential factoids?

    you should try reading the post above yours. it explains it quite well.


  • Options
    #231
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Why, are you suggesting this? Nobody else has. Yet you seemingly felt the need to announce to us all that the US is a democracy as if anybody said any different.

    My point is very simple. Americans have felt no need to change the 2A in over two hundred years. Yet you seem to feel that it doesn't say what you thing it ought to say. Well, boo-hoo. Thankfully we live in a democracy with a strong constitution and do not have to put up the hodgepodge of gun laws and arbitary Police Superintendents decisions about individuals as gun owners in Ireland have to. Take a look in the Shooting forum to see how messed up Irish gun legislation really is.
    And how many gun owners in the US are part of these "well regulated militias" of which you speak? The highest estimates I can find are under 50,000. Overall gun ownership? About 100,000,000.
    Again, have you anything relevant to add here other than pointless definitions of trivial tangential factoids?

    Oh, so now you understand that militia does not equal army. We are getting somewhere on you actually understanding the 2A. Good.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    MadsL wrote: »
    At the risk of being directed to the motoring forum, I drive the same truck and I've never got it stuck on "humps and bumps" and I've done plenty of off-road driving. Perhaps you should "jack it up" and risk having it called a toy.

    Of course my original point was that some people's "toys" are other people's tools, a fact which you don't seem to grasp when it comes to firearms.
    I know I'm just taking the opportunity to pick on American cars. :pac:

    It is slightly jacked up, it's the boss edition so that must be good.
    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/Turk/Dodge/outside_zps688a0e20.jpg it just seems to get stuck and spin it's back wheels at every oportunity where small euopean cars have no problems at all, although I haven't really driven much, its not taxed. The road in your picture is a perfectly good road, even with it's dirt surface it looks better than some paved roads here in Ireland.


  • Options
    #233
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I know I'm just taking the opportunity to pick on American cars. :pac:

    It is slightly jacked up, it's the boss edition so that must be good.
    http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y15/Turk/Dodge/outside_zps688a0e20.jpg it just seems to get stuck and spin it's back wheels at every oportunity where small euopean cars have no problems at all, although I haven't really driven much, its not taxed. The road in your picture is a perfectly good road, even with it's dirt surface it looks better than some paved roads here in Ireland.

    It gets knarly about eight miles further up, the rain washes it out and its pretty steep and rutted. Don't have a pic of that bit sorry.
    Nice truck by the way. Shame it's a V6 ;)


  • Options
    #234
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    MadsL wrote: »
    My point is very simple. Americans have felt no need to change the 2A in over two hundred years.
    Irrelevant as to whether it is currently fit for purpose.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Yet you seem to feel that it doesn't say what you thing it ought to say. Well, boo-hoo.
    It says "well regulated militia". Very clearly. Can you point me to this "well regulated militia" in the USA that has 100,000,000 members? Ta. (boo hoo in advance when you can't find it).
    MadsL wrote: »
    Take a look in the Shooting forum to see how messed up Irish gun legislation really is.
    I'll take messed up regulations over school massacres, thanks.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Oh, so now you understand that militia does not equal army. We are getting somewhere on you actually understanding the 2A. Good.
    And we are still absolutely nowhere on you explaining where this "well regulated militia", as specified in 2A, is. Which one of the three common words in that phrase are you having difficulty with, or does it only become incomprehensible to you when they are put together in that order?


  • Options
    #235
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And we are still absolutely nowhere on you explaining where this "well regulated militia", as specified in 2A, is. Which one of the three common words in that phrase are you having difficulty with, or does it only become incomprehensible to you when they are put together in that order?

    watch the vid. takes less than a minute. its tells you all you need to know. you're caught up on this "well regulated militia" for some reason.


  • Options
    #236
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Beano wrote: »
    watch the vid. takes less than a minute. its tells you all you need to know. you're caught up on this "well regulated militia" for some reason.
    Why, because that's what the US constitution actually says? I shouldn't care about that and watch a video?
    Here, why don't you explain to me how "well regulated militia" means "anybody who isn't legally insane or a prior felon" in your own words? Does the "well regulated" bit have to disappear each and every time you define "militia" as "everybody"?
    You're honestly contending that the original intention was to pull a fast one and have two utterly separate concepts "well regulated militia" and (apparently) "<absolutely everybody>has the right to bear arms"?


  • Options
    #237
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Why, because that's what the US constitution actually says? I shouldn't care about that and watch a video?
    Here, why don't you explain to me how "well regulated militia" means "anybody who isn't legally insane or a prior felon" in your own words? Does the "well regulated" bit have to disappear each and every time you define "militia" as "everybody"?
    You're honestly contending that the original intention was to pull a fast one and have two utterly separate concepts "well regulated militia" and (apparently) "<absolutely everybody>has the right to bear arms"?

    well that is what the supreme court has decided so what are you going to do.
    "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

    feel free to read the full decision here (warning PDF) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Of course you will probably insist that they got it wrong. I mean, what would they know, right?


  • Options
    #238
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Irrelevant as to whether it is currently fit for purpose.
    If it wasn't fit for purpose it would be changed. Prohibition was such an amendment that was repealed. Clearly Americans do not wish it changed.
    It says "well regulated militia". Very clearly. Can you point me to this "well regulated militia" in the USA that has 100,000,000 members? Ta. (boo hoo in advance when you can't find it).
    I think you are very much confusing a right with exercising a right. I am free to own a gun, and join a militia. However, my right to own a gun does not depend on service in a militia. However, I am free to exercise my right to serve in a militia should the need arise. Are we clear now?
    I'll take messed up regulations over school massacres, thanks.
    Oh, is it an either/or choice? Do explain.
    And we are still absolutely nowhere on you explaining where this "well regulated militia", as specified in 2A, is. Which one of the three common words in that phrase are you having difficulty with, or does it only become incomprehensible to you when they are put together in that order?

    I think we have already been warned on bickering, I have provided you with the relevant quote from George Mason explaining his view. I suggest you read it. Militia = the whole people.

    Let's give you another example of his thought.

    Here is George Mason's draft wording. proposal of the Virginia Declaration of Rights
    That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.

    and this from the Virginia Bill of Rights...
    Article 12
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    If that is not crystal clear, I don't know how to help you understand further.


  • Options
    #239
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Beano wrote: »
    well that is what the supreme court has decided so what are you going to do.


    feel free to read the full decision here (warning PDF) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Of course you will probably insist that they got it wrong. I mean, what would they know, right?
    And you will assume they got it right without thinking for yourself?
    Why has any of the constitution and its interpretation changed since it was written then if your contention is that it was right all along from the start?


  • Options
    #240
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And you will assume they got it right without thinking for yourself?
    Why has any of the constitution and its interpretation changed since it was written then if your contention is that it was right all along from the start?

    well obviously havent bothered to read the judgement so i will leave you to wallow in your ignorance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    MadsL wrote: »
    If it wasn't fit for purpose it would be changed. Prohibition was such an amendment that was repealed. Clearly Americans do not wish it changed.


    I think you are very much confusing a right with exercising a right. I am free to own a gun, and join a militia. However, my right to own a gun does not depend on service in a militia. However, I am free to exercise my right to serve in a militia should the need arise. Are we clear now?


    Oh, is it an either/or choice? Do explain.



    I think we have already been warned on bickering, I have provided you with the relevant quote from George Mason explaining his view. I suggest you read it. Militia = the whole people.

    Let's give you another example of his thought.

    Here is George Mason's draft wording. proposal of the Virginia Declaration of Rights


    and this from the Virginia Bill of Rights...
    Article 12


    If that is not crystal clear, I don't know how to help you understand further.

    i think its best to leave him to it MadSL . he has no intention of listening to any opinion that isnt his own.


Advertisement