Reply #266: Oh boy, here we go again [View All]

[L1A1Rocker]

You ask: "How can the words of the 2nd Amendment, upon which the pre-existing right to arms DOES NOT DEPEND, be interpreted to condition, qualify or limit the right?'

The notion that the Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE is absurd. Try yellling FIRE in a theater when there is no fire and see if the First Amendment protects you. Try telling a Church it can endorse Huckabee and still keep it's tax exempt status in the name of the First Amendment. The notion that there are no conditions or limits to a right in the Bill of Rights is absurd and not supported by 200 years of Constitution law.

PS - DId it ever occur to you that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says regarding state militias?




Your answer is way off the mark as that is what SCOTUS is going to decide. Is DC's ban on handguns, and regs on long guns constitutional? Most say no, it violates the 2A. We shall see.

With regard to 2A and (state) militias. The 2A says NOTHING about "state militias". It does state "a well regulated militia". As I have said before, please educate yourself on what the definitions means because your are completely ignorant on them. I'll start you off with a hint, "regulated" in this context does not mean restricted. Now please go look it up.