I'm not constitutional scholar but I can read

Flame » in reply to Do we have a constitutional scholar, or colonial historian, in the house?

Eri — 6/27/2008 3:11:47 AM (archived)

And what you're saying is exactly what it means. The assholes on the bench have just rewritten the amendment to mean what they want it to mean, not what it means. Weren't Bush's appointees supposed to be strict constructionists? They wouldn't know a strict constructionist if it bit them in the ass.

The whole thread (17 posts)

Do we have a constitutional scholar, or colonial historian, in the house? - ER - 6/27/2008 2:21:11 AM
- American colonists versus the Crown - E.P. - 7/3/2008 9:48:41 PM
- Some information - TB - 6/27/2008 3:56:39 AM
- I'm not constitutional scholar but I can read - Eri - 6/27/2008 3:11:47 AM
  - If that's what it meant - Lee - 6/27/2008 3:26:01 AM
    - What the founding fathers wanted doesn't matter. - ER - 6/27/2008 3:59:07 AM
      - Private militias have existed as well. - Lee - 6/27/2008 4:07:44 AM
        
        We have them today too, they're called "gangs". - ER - 6/27/2008 4:24:27 AM
        
        And "Blackwater" - Robert - 6/27/2008 4:44:10 AM
        
        I wouldn't worry about it too much. - Lee - 6/27/2008 4:28:30 AM
- The court did not consider it the "key phrase". - RobVG - 6/27/2008 2:57:48 AM
  - The Second Amendment says no such thing. - ER - 6/27/2008 3:30:15 AM
    - Clarification. - ER - 6/27/2008 3:39:41 AM
      - whatever the Supreme Court says it is - FrankC - 6/27/2008 4:46:06 AM
      - If that's the case - Lee - 6/27/2008 3:43:32 AM
        
        Wrong again. - ER - 6/27/2008 4:14:24 AM
        
        That's what I said. - Lee - 6/27/2008 4:25:27 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Flame

The whole thread (17 posts)