[Wee-Weed Up]

I am 100% behing the 2nd Amendment. But this article fails to quote everything Bill O’Reilly said. It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control. Then it is up to the court to decide if the temporary suspension is credible or not. And like I said, I am pro-2nd Amendment. But the law is the law, and you can’t claim to support one part of the Constituttion and not the other part.

[VeniVidiVici]

It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

I'm sorry. I'm not a constitutional lawyer like Barack Hussein so I'm going to have to ask you to put a link to the part of the Constitution you're referring to here.

[PowderMonkey]

"It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control."

The Articles enumerated within the Constitution's Bill of Rights are not conditional. 100% behind the 2nd Amendment, are you? Obviously not.

[AvOrdVet]

It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

Like VeniVidiVici, I am fairly up on the contents of the Constitution and I am calling a solid BS alert... I can't wait to see the link I am sure you will provide, even the liberal dems have never made a statement like that.

P.S. if you need a link to a copy of the Constitution, just let me know, I'll be glad to help out... ;-)

[meyer]

It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

"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."

I don't see it there.

[chainsaw56]

It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

Where does it say that?

[Mad Dawgg]

"But this article fails to quote everything Bill O’Reilly said. It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control."

What section of the Constitution sez such?

[PalmettoMason]

It specifically says in the Constitution, in the a state of emergency, the government can temporarily suspend the 2nd Amendment in order to get things under control.

Where, pray tell, does it say that? Post it, please.

Then it is up to the court to decide if the temporary suspension is credible or not.

Really?

But the law is the law, and you can’t claim to support one part of the Constituttion and not the other part.

Which part is that, the PART YOU MADE UP? Or is it right next to the part that privides a "right" to have an abortion?

[Red in Blue PA]

Bravo Sierra!

[Cboldt]

I think you have mixed up the writ of habeas corpus with the right to keep and bear arms. The right of an imprisoned person to access to the courts MAY be suspended - that is what suspension of habeas corpus is - but the suspension must be by Congress, and then the suspension will be respected (by the courts) only if the suspension is justified by rebellion or insurrection.

Of course the guns are taken from those jailed. But this has no effect whatsoever on the rights of the non-jailed people.