Skip to comments.
Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?
new.yahoo.com ^
| 04/15/14
| Lyle Denniston
Posted on 04/15/2014 9:29:18 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 last
To: ForYourChildren
41
posted on
04/16/2014 8:33:10 AM PDT
by
B4Ranch
(Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
To: ForYourChildren
They are really pushing this hard, aren't they? This must be Reid and Obama's next push: "if these Constitutionalist teabaggers obey the Constitution, then we will make the Constitution say they can have no guns."
Inching ever closer--millimeter by millimeter!-- toward full-scale civil war, with massive bloodshed, famine, displacement, and misery for all Americans.
To: Starstruck
The freedom-hating Left does not recognize McDonald v. Chicago. Hence the new gun ban laws in NY, CT, MD, CO.
To: july4thfreedomfoundation
The words “well-regulated” meant “well-trained.” Yes, and well-provisioned, and smoothly-operating. That sense is still with us in a few usages of the word, mainly relating to clocks and flow control devices.
To: righttackle44
Anytime—ANYTIME—a Constitutional convention is called for the purpose of changing any part of it, ALL of it can be changed. Not true! An Article V convention is for the purpose of introducing Amendments, not a wholesale replacement. But, yes, there could be some nasty Amendments introduced, then be ratified the same way Obama was elected, with wholesale fraud.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
