Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Darksheare

Then it has to go SCOTUS.

2/3 of the country have people that are pretty adamant about having the right to protect themselves, and its ever been thus.

My question stands - this legislation makes it much, much tougher. Why again are you opposed?


18 posted on 03/27/2015 9:17:21 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: RinaseaofDs

SCOTUS can also change.
What SHOULD be is that “Shall not be infringed” should have been enough.
And, again, all it takes is a bunch of idiots and you have your 67.
There needs to be teeth to prevent shenanigans.
A simple 2/3 doesn’t protect enough.


19 posted on 03/27/2015 9:19:57 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: RinaseaofDs; petro45acp; rarestia; Eric in the Ozarks

Funny that you focus on me alone out of everyone else who has stated there is an inherent weakness in this bill.


20 posted on 03/27/2015 9:22:09 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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