Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: djf

“the right to KEEP...”

You offered a definition for half of it. How about offering a definition for the other half?


7 posted on 01/11/2013 8:48:28 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle

Because I am focusing on the “KEEP” part.

Keep. Not surrender to. Not abandon or give up. To retain, hold. To own and control.

There is no part of making any or even certain guns illegal that mean anything like it. There is nothing about an “assault weapons ban” or “confiscation” that mean the same. There is no part of the current agenda that does not in fact mean exactly THE OPPOSITE of the right of the people to KEEP...

The language is plain. If they want to take the guns or make certain ones illegal, they must amend the Constitution.

It is plain enough that even the most die-hard lib-tard can understand it, and also understand that a government who tries to confiscate or make illegal guns WITHOUT amending the Constitution HAS CLEARLY VIOLATED THAT CONSTITUTION...


8 posted on 01/11/2013 9:07:17 AM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson