Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
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
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Koshinn" data-source="post: 1550237" data-attributes="member: 18314"><p>That's the funniest thing I've read all day.</p><p></p><p>There is a LOT of room for interpretation in the constitution. It's vague at times and flat out ambiguous at others. The 2nd amendment itself has extremely ambiguous wording that was only recently (last couple of years) clarified by SCOTUS. It was clarified not by a careful reading, but by searching the history books and texts from that time to figure out the intent of the framers of the constitution. The "plain english" was and is a mess.</p><p></p><p>SCOTUS has to rule on constitutional issues because there are so many law making bodies in the country (federal congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, cities and counties, etc) that not all of them follow the constitution all the time. Is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater protected under the 1st amendment? Not anymore. Is it ok to own a human being as property? It was for a hundred and fifty years because some humans were not considered "people."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Koshinn, post: 1550237, member: 18314"] That's the funniest thing I've read all day. There is a LOT of room for interpretation in the constitution. It's vague at times and flat out ambiguous at others. The 2nd amendment itself has extremely ambiguous wording that was only recently (last couple of years) clarified by SCOTUS. It was clarified not by a careful reading, but by searching the history books and texts from that time to figure out the intent of the framers of the constitution. The "plain english" was and is a mess. SCOTUS has to rule on constitutional issues because there are so many law making bodies in the country (federal congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, cities and counties, etc) that not all of them follow the constitution all the time. Is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater protected under the 1st amendment? Not anymore. Is it ok to own a human being as property? It was for a hundred and fifty years because some humans were not considered "people." [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom