• Welcome to Valhalla Legends Archive.
 

Goodbye 2nd amendment

Started by CrAz3D, November 09, 2005, 12:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

dxoigmn

#30
Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 11, 2005, 12:54 PM
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.

Yeah if you conveniently ignore the first 13 words!

@ CrAz3d: You taking the pretty liberal interpretation of the Constitution with your stance. I thought the Constitution was not a living document, but meant to be strictly interpreted?

Invert

#31
Quote from: dxoigmn on November 11, 2005, 01:21 PM
Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 11, 2005, 12:54 PM
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.
Yeah if you conveniently ignore the first 13 words!

There is a comma after the 1st 13 words. The 1st part allows us to assemble a regulated militia if need be for the protection of freedom and the 2nd part allows us to bear arms.

Arta

Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.

I'm not sure about that. Read the rest of my posts in this thead.

Quote from: CrAz3D on November 11, 2005, 01:02 PM
Say the city banned free speech, is that unconstitutional?

I don't know. That's why I don't understand Grok's point fully.

Invert

Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 11, 2005, 01:32 PM
Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.

I'm not sure about that. Read the rest of my posts in this thead.

Quote from: CrAz3D on November 11, 2005, 01:02 PM
Say the city banned free speech, is that unconstitutional?

I don't know. That's why I don't understand Grok's point fully.

Arta if you don't know the answer to that question you are ignorant on this whole entire matter and should not participate in this discussion.

Arta

Well, I would have thought there is a good argument (an unassailably iron-clad one, in fact) for banning free speech being unconstitutional, but then I read Grok's posts, which seem to indicate that it might not be. Thus, I am now confused. I'm quite sure I've just misunderstood Grok's point.

CrAz3D

Quote from: dxoigmn on November 11, 2005, 01:21 PM
Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 11, 2005, 12:54 PM
Well in that case, what anti-constitutional argument is there?

Our second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Proposition H in San Francisco impedes on the second amendment.

Yeah if you conveniently ignore the first 13 words!

@ CrAz3d: You taking the pretty liberal interpretation of the Constitution with your stance. I thought the Constitution was not a living document, but meant to be strictly interpreted?
What do ya mean?...
rebundance - having or being in excess of sheer stupidity
(ré-bun-dance)
Quote from: Spht on June 22, 2004, 07:32 PMSlap.
Quote from: Adron on January 28, 2005, 09:17 AMIn a way, I believe that religion is inherently evil, which includes Christianity. I'd also say Christianity is eviller than Buddhism (has more potential for evil).
Quote from: iago on April 19, 2005, 01:06 PM
CrAz3D's ... is too big vertically, at least, too big with ... iago ...

|