Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
HELP STOP HR1022
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="justgoto" data-source="post: 310723" data-attributes="member: 17125"><p>The tragedy of all this is "the people" are supposed to have assault weapons. How else are they going to maintain "A well regulated Militia"?</p><p></p><p>The US Gov. used to argue, "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller" target="_blank">The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.</a>" And the Supreme Court agreed that a weapon which "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is what the constitution guarantees.</p><p></p><p>An assault weapon fits the bill absolutely.</p><p></p><p>Let me also note that "the people" have that right; not, "specific people," "nice people," or "purple people," "<strong>THE</strong> people".</p><p></p><p>How did we let then take our rights away? "Why did we?" is a better question.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="justgoto, post: 310723, member: 17125"] The tragedy of all this is "the people" are supposed to have assault weapons. How else are they going to maintain "A well regulated Militia"? The US Gov. used to argue, "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller"]The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.[/URL]" And the Supreme Court agreed that a weapon which "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is what the constitution guarantees. An assault weapon fits the bill absolutely. Let me also note that "the people" have that right; not, "specific people," "nice people," or "purple people," "[B]THE[/B] people". How did we let then take our rights away? "Why did we?" is a better question. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
HELP STOP HR1022
Top