quote Originally posted by Phranc: No there were not restrictions built in. And no restrictions by Congress on a federal level are allowed by the constitution. Your understanding of the document is piss poor.

What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get??? YOUR understanding of the document is piss-poor.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get??? YOUR understanding of the document is piss-poor.

Please see Formula88's post regarding sentence structure. The "well regulated" as explained (pretty damn well, if I do say so myself) by me, is NOT a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms but one (or many possible) reasons why people might need their arms.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-08-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get??? YOUR understanding of the document is piss-poor.

Please show me where it says only for a well regulated militia. You can't. Its not there. There is no qualifier that restricts the right to bear arms to only the militia. You grasp of the English language is as piss poor as your understanding of the document. It is not a restriction. You would have to be a very special king of stupid to think it is especially given the second half of the sentence.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get??? YOUR understanding of the document is piss-poor.

Have you read any of the other posts?

Once again, since you seem unable to keep up with the class: people have rights, govt has powers. Since the 2nd Amendment uses the term "right" instead of "power", it is directly addressing an ability of the people, not an ability of the govt. At no point does the 2nd grant a power to the govt. Words to the effect "Congress shall hereby have the power to" are nowhere to be found. In fact, the 2nd is expressly denying a power to the govt, namely the ability to infringe on the RKBA.

I would suggest that you read the Constitution, and understand what it does and does not do. Phranc is correct, your understanding of the document is piss poor.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 03-08-2009).]

ktthecarguy! Can you give any compelling argument why you believe that the Federal Government should remove, restrict or ban any firearms from law-abiding citizens?

Make your case!

"A well maintained lawn mower being necessary to the maintenance of a nice lawn, the right of the people to keep and use spark plugs shall not be infringed."

Sentence structure is the same.

Would you say that sentence limits the right to keep spark plugs to only those with lawn mowers?

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-08-2009).]

quote Originally posted by aceman: Please give me your definition of "Militia".

Not to argue your reference ace, but, the word malitia was a legality. I feel the true meaning of malitia had more to do with a description of a fighting force. At the time, the young Americans had just won a war of independence. Of which arms were scarce. We had to enlist foreign aid to fight our battle against a tyrannical government. Our forefathers knew that we needed self protection from such rule.
Also, for reference, regulated means ....

quote Dictionary.com reg⋅u⋅late    /ˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA –verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

No where does the Second Amendment require a governing body.

Like many things, the intent of the Constitution versus what it actually says are 2 different things.

James Madison is generally regarded as the writer or father of the constitution. Here's how he originally wrote this amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Facts are not open to interpretation. They are sticky, stubborn things, facts. Daytime tends to be daytime, no matter what some wing-nut tries to make you believe. As far as calling you a liar, I did not. I was careful to say "you speak in lies" because you may very well believe what you say is true - but it isn't. Whoever fed you that misinformation is the liar. As for "attack on the constitution", be specific. List the article(s), by number, and how it is being attacked (by the current administration, not the previous administration.)

Maybe you could do the same for the last administration since you just happen to bring it up?
And do be specific. Please list the articles and do not speak in lies.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: "A well maintained lawn mower being necessary to the maintenance of a nice lawn, the right of the people to keep and use spark plugs shall not be infringed." Sentence structure is the same. Would you say that sentence limits the right to keep spark plugs to only those with lawn mowers?

Only in Kalifornia!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get??? YOUR understanding of the document is piss-poor.

What part of "the right of the PEOPLE" don't YOU get?
Does the amendment say it is a right of the PEOPLE or a right of the MILITIA?

I even drew you a picture. Take it to a Junior High English teacher and have them explain sentence structure to you.

Obama could just by doing one thing save all the sucession violence and the bloodshed that is just festering below the surface... just waiting for a tripwire to begin.

That one thing he could do:

Resign.

Pelosi and Biden could also do that too.

That would go far to save the union as we know it.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: Obama could just by doing one thing save all the sucession violence and the bloodshed that is just festering below the surface... just waiting for a tripwire to begin. That one thing he could do: Resign. Pelosi and Biden could also do that too. That would go far to save the union as we know it.

I disagree strongly with that assesment. It goes way beyond, and far predates Obama and the current congressional makeup. They are an issue--true, but not nearly all there is to it.

Yes, but a resignation from the current regime would go far to begin to fix the damage done already.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: No, the sky is NOT blue!!! It is pink with purple polka-dots!! Yes it really is!!! And I am NOT deluded, YOU ARE!!!

Arguing with Phranc is kinda like teaching a pig to dance - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Here, Phranc, have a nice tall glass of SHUT THE PHUCK UP, YOU DERANGED TROLL!!!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Arguing with Phranc is kinda like teaching a pig to dance - it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Here, Phranc, have a nice tall glass of SHUT THE PHUCK UP, YOU DERANGED TROLL!!!

So because you lack simple English comprehension and can't for the life you understand the Constitution the problem is with me..... What about all the other people who pointed how stupid you are? And why should I shut up? Is it damaging to your self esteem that I called you out on on how special you are? Just admit you are a moron and don't know anything about the Constitution. It will be better for you then blaming me for your stupidity. But if being educated is a waste of time for you I'm sure you can go and watch some Comedy Central so you can be told what to think. I may be a deranged troll as you put it but I'm a half wit moron who failed in this thread spectacularly.

And I'm also not a sorry little liar. Does it make you feel special to make up quotes I didn't say? Stupid and dishonest. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the idiot who that went to court because he was ticketed for driving on an expired tag and told the judge that the cop didn't know how to do his job then proceeded to come here and cry like a idiot about hoe due proses? Or was that some other idiot?

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 03-08-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Arguing with Phranc is kinda like teaching a pig to dance - it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Here, Phranc, have a nice tall glass of SHUT THE PHUCK UP, YOU DERANGED TROLL!!!

Real contructive to a debate.

debate_dodge_tactic_0097: If you can't attack the logic, attack the person.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: ktthecarguy! Can you give any compelling argument why you believe that the Federal Government should remove, restrict or ban any firearms from law-abiding citizens? Make your case!

No, I cannot. And I do not advocate banning any firearms, with the possible exception of military weapons.

My point was that the article as written is flawed. If it was meant to state that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, no restrictions, then it is poorly written. If it was meant to state that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for militia members only, then it is poorly written. Either way you look at it, the article is poorly written.

Here's proof: this article has been wrangled over by legal scholars for 200 years. It hasn't been conclusively decided by now, and looks like it never will be. And it doesn't look like it's going to be decided on this forum today, either.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: No, I cannot. And I do not advocate banning any firearms, with the possible exception of military weapons. My point was that the article as written is flawed. If it was meant to state that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, no restrictions, then it is poorly written. If it was meant to state that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for militia members only, then it is poorly written. Either way you look at it, the article is poorly written. Here's proof: this article has been wrangled over by legal scholars for 200 years. It hasn't been conclusively decided by now, and looks like it never will be. And it doesn't look like it's going to be decided on this forum today, either.

The article isn't flawed you understanding of it is by way of your not having the basic understanding of the English language. It has been conclusively decided by SCOTUS. So much for your proof.

Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT
Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT Still thirsty, have another glass of STFU,YDT

You know if you yell loud enough all the stupid posts you made will become instantly factual.

The article was not flawed at the time it was written. It is flawed only by the standards of today's poor grammar usage and improper sentence structuring. If you read how Madison originally wrote it, it is clearly meant to apply to individuals.

Okay....

It appears Don and I both would like to get back to topic:

Kt,

"A well maintained lawn mower being necessary to the maintenance of a nice lawn, the right of the people to keep and use spark plugs shall not be infringed."

Sentence structure is the same.

Would you say that sentence limits the right to keep spark plugs to only those with lawn mowers?

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-08-2009).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: No, I cannot. And I do not advocate banning any firearms, with the possible exception of military weapons. My point was that the article as written is flawed. If it was meant to state that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, no restrictions, then it is poorly written. If it was meant to state that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for militia members only, then it is poorly written. Either way you look at it, the article is poorly written. Here's proof: this article has been wrangled over by legal scholars for 200 years. It hasn't been conclusively decided by now, and looks like it never will be. And it doesn't look like it's going to be decided on this forum today, either.

What part of the meaning of "militia" in the late 1700s that I TRIED to explain to you, don't you understand?

In 1792, even YOU would be part of the "militia". You would not be marching around in a tailored uniform, hanging around a bunch of professional Soldiers every day. You'd be Joe Sixpack with your musket, bayonet and powder. You might get together with your neighbors to train for a couple of weeks out of the year. You weren't considered a Soldier or part of an Army. You were Joe Sixpack, there with your musket. Ready to defend your town and land should the Army of the United States not be able to.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Here's proof: this article has been wrangled over by legal scholars for 200 years. It hasn't been conclusively decided by now, and looks like it never will be. And it doesn't look like it's going to be decided on this forum today, either.

If that was your true stance, why did you go to such lengths to attempt to say it positively applies only to militias? I don't get it--why not just come out from the start and say it's too vague to make a determination ?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The article was not flawed at the time it was written. It is flawed only by the standards of today's poor grammar usage and improper sentence structuring. If you read how Madison originally wrote it, it is clearly meant to apply to individuals.

maryjane, Formula88, Phranc, et al, Remember, liberals NEVER let facts get in the way.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: It has been conclusively decided by SCOTUS. So much for your proof.

How could somebody not know this? Not the first time it has been mentioned in this thread either. Just ignore the facts that don't fit your scheme, much like DC I guess.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Okay.... It appears Don and I both would like to get back to topic: Kt, "A well maintained lawn mower being necessary to the maintenance of a nice lawn, the right of the people to keep and use spark plugs shall not be infringed." Sentence structure is the same. Would you say that sentence limits the right to keep spark plugs to only those with lawn mowers?

If taken literaly word for word--no.

I would love to find a source that explained why the wording was changed from the original:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

to:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Had it been left just as Madison wrote it, there would be no question today, and since Supreme Courts generally decide on the intent of the law--rather than exact wording, I suspect this is why 2nd amendment has withstood the test of time.

What the Founding Fathers Meant by the "Militia"
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

These quotes from notables of our past demonstrate a fear of a national army, rather, they believed that a 'militia' of citizens would "prevent the establishment of a standing army".

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

Who are the 'militia'?

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Sir George Tucker: "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped" and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "standing army" or "regulars" to describe a professional army. Therefore, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment.

****************************
http://gunshowonthenet.com/...nToCoxe01031788.html
Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24
James Madison to Tench Coxe

Dear Sir

New York

Jany. 3d. 1788

I have been favored with yours of the 28 Ult. and thank you for the paper which it inclosed.(1) Your arguments appear to me to place the subject to which they relate in its true light*, and must be satisfactory to the writer himself whom they oppose, if he can suspend for a moment his preconceived opinions. But whether they should have any effect or not on him, they will unquestionably be of service in Virginia, and probably in the other Southern States. Col. Hamilton has read the paper with equal pleasure & approbation with myself. He seems to think that the Farmers of New York are in no danger of being infected with an improper jealousy of a sacrifice of their interests to a partiality for commerce or navigation. Connecticut is more likely perhaps to be awake to suspicions of that sort; and it will be well to counteract them every where by candid and judicious explanations. I propose to send a copy of yours to S. Carolina by the first conveyance; and to put another into the hands of some Gentleman who corresponds with Georgia if I can find one. I have no correspondent in that State.

I never till very lately received an answer from Virga. on the subject of your former observations in support of the fOEdl Constitution. I find now that the three first letters were published at Richmond in a pamphlet with one or two other little pieces, and that they had a very valuable effect. The 4th was circulated in the Newspapers, not having arrived in time to be put into the pamphlet.(2)

We have received no information of very late date or of a satisfactory nature from Europe. The London Head in the paper of this morning which I inclose, mentions a circumstance which leads to some new reflections on the situation of the Dutch.(3)

I have no intelligence from the States Eastward of this worth adding. The elections in Massts. must by this time authorize a pretty good estimate of the two parties with regard to the plan of the Convention, but I am not yet possessed of theconjectures on the subject. It seems that both Mr. Gerry who opposed the plan in Convention, and Mr. Dana who followed the example in Congs. are left out of the returns from their respective districts. Perhaps the enmity of the former may not only be embittered, but rendered more active and successful by this disappointment. On the floor of the Convention he could only have urged bad arguments, which might be answered & exposed by good ones. Without doors he will be able not only to urge them without opposition, but to insinuate that he could say much more, had he not been deprived of a hearing by the machinations of those who were afraid of being confronted.
The post from the South being not yet come in I can not give you any Richmond News. The last I received was a continuation of the evidences of an increasing opposition to the new Government. The Characters which head it account fully for the change of opinions.
With very great esteem & regard I am Dr Sir, Yr Obedt. & very hble servt., Js. Madison Jr

RC (DLC: Madison Papers). Madison, Papers (Rutland), 10:349--;50.
1 See ibid., pp. 347--;48. Enclosure not found, but apparently the December 28 issue of the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer containing Coxe's first essay under the pseudonym "An American" which was a reply to Richard Henry Lee's October 16 letter to Gov. Edmund Randolph reprinted in the Pennsylvania Packet of December 20. See Lee to Elbridge Gerry, September 29, 1787, note. For the context of this Madison-Coxe exchange, see Doc. Hist. of Ratif., 15:165--;77. For Coxe's enthusiastic and tireless defense of the proposed Constitution under several pseudonyms, including both "An American" and "An American Citizen," see Jacob E. Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), pp. 109--;31.
2 The "three first letters" that Coxe had written as "An American Citizen" had appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer September 26--;29 and were reprinted in the New York Packet in mid-October. Madison had sent the essays to Joseph Jones in Richmond where they were reprinted in the Virginia Independent Chronicle of November 7. These pieces were included in the pamphlet to which Madison refers that was published in Richmond in mid-November but has not survived. The fourth essay appeared in the Virginia Independent Chronicle of November 21 and was incorporated, together with the first three, in a pamphlet published December 15 and entitled Various Extracts on the Foederal Government, Proposed by the Convention Held at Philadelphia (Richmond, 1787). See Evans, Am. Bibliography, no. 20,824. Madison, of course, was unaware of the appearance of the second pamphlet. For Coxe's essays and the pamphlet anthologies published in Virginia, see Doc. Hist. of Ratif., 13:247--;52, 264--;66, 272--;73, 431--;37, 14:447--;48. The essays were later collected and published under the title An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of America (Philadelphia, 1788), for which see Evans, Am. Bibliography, no. 21,028.
3 The New York Daily Advertiser of this day had reported under a London heading dated October 23 that King Frederick William II of Prussia had demanded that the Dutch pay the expenses of the Prussian troops occupying Amsterdam.

* - And here are two examples of the articles which Mr. Madison states “place the subject to which they relate in its true light”. And, which apparently “Col. Hamilton has read the paper with equal pleasure & approbation”:

(Emphasis mine) "The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia? [A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe, 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 03-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." Who are the 'militia'?

Great stuff, man. Good post.

If there is any question about the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the above should be sufficient to clarify it. In fact, let's make this big and bold...

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

...including their own government. THAT'S why the 2nd amendment is so important. THAT is why those like liberals would want to disarm the people...so there would be no armed resistance against their goddamn nanny state.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: If that was your true stance, why did you go to such lengths to attempt to say it positively applies only to militias? I don't get it--why not just come out from the start and say it's too vague to make a determination ?

Because there are plenty of people who interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that it applies only to militias. I happen to disagree. But to imply that there aren't ANY people who interpret it that way is nonsense. And for anyone to state with certainty that the Supreme Court decided the final determination of the 2nd amendment ignores history. You and I know there will certainly be future tests of the 2nd amendment - there have been in the past, there will undoubtedly be more in the future. Times change, people change, weapons change. All these will eventually need to be sorted out in some future time. For example - what about future non-lethal weapons? Should they be in the same category (and subject to the same legislation) as lethal weapons? Something to think about.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Whoever wins, gets to write the history books.

Very true, depicting the other side however they wish to sadly.

quote Originally posted by railshot: As someone that was involved in the "riots" of the late '60's and early 70's, I can honestly say I have not seen it quite this, umm, shall I say, interesting. Many people are going into what I like to call "survival mode", and are willing to do whatever it takes to survive. This coming summer is going to be a very intersting one. Probably time for the silent majority to make a noise. I do not see anything good coming out of all of this, and I am worried. Not for myself, but for all you younger guys with families, like my children now have. The government is not the solution, it is the problem. Just watch cspan for a couple of days and you will see what I mean. I cannot believe these are the people that are getting elected. Republican and Democrat. Politics has just become a popularity contest. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I am an American from the United States of America. We do not have representation for the average person. We are the middle and boring, and not worth the air time or ink. The top and the bottom only seem to be getting the attention and we are paying the price. Lost jobs, lost futures, lost hope. I feel for my people. Simple, hard working, average Americans. I know, I am living it. Watch out for this summer, things are going to happen....... just a gut feeling. Hope I can remember how to farm again...... and I hope I am wrong, but history tells me different.

Wow, this is crazy. I assume (I don't mean for this to be an insult) that you're a "hippie"? At least, in the sense that you WERE a hippie back in the day?

I've always wondered how hippies would feel about the world "today". At least with respect to politics.

I find it very interesting because... well, I think Conservatives (Republicans) actually have a LOT in common with Hippies.

Clearly, there is a MAJOR dissagreement with any kind of military / war. I don't think Republicans or Conservatives (what I consider myself) LIKE war, but we do support a strong military as I feel it works as a deterrant. I don't like when we use it though.

BUT, our views on big government are pretty much the same. Hippies don't like big government any more than Conservatives do?

Would you agree?


For what it's worth, I have a 73 Volkswagen Bus...

------------------
Todd,
2006 Pontiac Solstice
2004 Volkswagen Beetle Convt. (Wife's)
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1981 EZ-GO Xi875-A "Miami Dolphins" Medical Cart
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter
1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 350

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: No, I cannot. And I do not advocate banning any firearms, with the possible exception of military weapons. My point was that the article as written is flawed. .

Is this how Obama sees the bill of rights or constitution? I hope not.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Is this how Obama sees the bill of rights or constitution? I hope not.

Comrade Obama sees the bill of rights and the counstitution as door mats on the front and back doors of the White House.