by Jerkmany » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:37 am
by Liberty and Linguistics » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:37 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:38 am
by The Sotoan Union » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:39 am
by Azov Battalion » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:40 am
by Insaeldor » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:40 am
by Christian State of Mississippi » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:42 am
by Liberty and Linguistics » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:42 am
Christian State of Mississippi wrote:NO! The Second Amendment is fine as it is! You or the government shall not take my god-given right to own my AR-15.
by Hladgos » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:43 am
by The 502nd SS » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:44 am
by The Universal Inter-Dimensional Union » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:45 am
by Liberty and Linguistics » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:47 am
by Urran » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:49 am
The Blood Ravens wrote: How wonderful. Its like Japan, and 1950''s America had a baby. All the racism of the 50s, and everything else Japanese.
by Oceanic people » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:50 am
by The Universal Inter-Dimensional Union » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:50 am
Urran wrote:It should perhaps be updated to modern standard English. The definition of militia and regulated has changed since it was written. Militia used to be defined as a group of able bodied men and well regulated in the context that it was used in the constitution meant "well trained". So the constitution essentially says you can have a gun if you know how to use it properly.
by The Dominion Of The Corn » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am
by Urran » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am
Insaeldor wrote:Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
I have reason to doubt that the post that says "god given right to an AR-15" is serious. Because, where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not take away thou neighbor's AR-15?" Genesis?
As far as I know the bible doesn't say a thing as far as ones ability to own a weapon of any kind.
The Blood Ravens wrote: How wonderful. Its like Japan, and 1950''s America had a baby. All the racism of the 50s, and everything else Japanese.
by Scomagia » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am
The Universal Inter-Dimensional Union wrote:The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when either Native Americans or Brits were liable to be kicking down your door at any given moment, so a simple flintlock musket was a granted form of defence.
By all means, let the 2nd Amendment stay... but only extend as far as the weapons it was intended for: flintlock muskets. You can still 'defend your castle' with it, but you won't be able to slaughter an entire school in ten minutes.
by Arlenton » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am
Jerkmany wrote:I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cyptopir, Dauchh Palki, Statesburg
Advertisement