|
|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) I hope for a good solid citation -- one that you would accept if our stances were reversed, not just some Newsweek opinion. The NRA tells us that those are made up by evil liberal-agendad politicians like Moynihan. Kleck and Kates (IIRC) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Um, I was kind of playing, but what do you mean? I think the 2nd is pretty clear on the matter. The issue of how the Supreme Court has allowed the curtailing of our constitutional rights is interesting, but I'm not sure that I'm ready to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, there is stuff that is covered by the federal government to make trade and travel amongst the many states more or less an easy thing -- one of the true limited purposes of the U.S. federal govt. I have no problems with any of that. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) The Federal system means that any precedent set in another state may affect our own laws--certainly, they will when we drive through, or relocate to, said state, and most American families are spread through many states. So I'd argue that it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
