Anyone NOT own a handgun?
Results 1 to 10 of 421

Thread: Anyone NOT own a handgun?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member taxfree4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by shooter View Post
    Tax you're so mean you don't need a gun.
    C'mon, it was those 2 spawns of the she-devil I was married to that made me mean. Everyone says how long do you want to live - 3 days after they both die to go to the wake and the funerals and be the first one to throw the first shovel of dirt on the casket but I'm not bitter. Anyway, let's get back on point or Big Bird will have my ass and Phantom will suspend me for a week for hijacking the thread. My favorite gun is the Heckler and Koch 45, man that thing is sweet. As far as Article 2 of the Bill of Rights it was written in English common law and all regulated in "well regulated militia" means is "well functioning" meaning they can shoot. And a militia, again in English common law, was any able bodied man, so any able bodied man that can shoot can exercise the inherit freedom noted in the Article, wrongly referred to as an Amendment.

    (I did not hijack the thread) - disclaimer

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    casselberry, fl
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by taxfree4 View Post
    C'mon, it was those 2 spawns of the she-devil I was married to that made me mean. Everyone says how long do you want to live - 3 days after they both die to go to the wake and the funerals and be the first one to throw the first shovel of dirt on the casket but I'm not bitter. Anyway, let's get back on point or Big Bird will have my ass and Phantom will suspend me for a week for hijacking the thread. My favorite gun is the Heckler and Koch 45, man that thing is sweet. As far as Article 2 of the Bill of Rights it was written in English common law and all regulated in "well regulated militia" means is "well functioning" meaning they can shoot. And a militia, again in English common law, was any able bodied man, so any able bodied man that can shoot can exercise the inherit freedom noted in the Article, wrongly referred to as an Amendment.

    (I did not hijack the thread) - disclaimer
    I'm never far from a gun...or the US Constitution. My copy says there are Articles I thru VII, and Amendments I thru XXVII. I completely agree with your interpretation of Amendment II, but wonder about calling it an Article.

  3. #3
    Senior Member taxfree4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by hoglaw View Post
    I'm never far from a gun...or the US Constitution. My copy says there are Articles I thru VII, and Amendments I thru XXVII. I completely agree with your interpretation of Amendment II, but wonder about calling it an Article.
    Because that is what the founders who wrote it called it. If you look at a copy of the original document they are denoted as Articles not Amendments. An amendment by its very nature amends something already written, however, the first ten entries on the Bill of Rights were original writings, they weren't amending anything. After the first ten original there were succeeding amendments. There is a case out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I'll try and look for it, that says just that.

    (I am not hijacking the thread) - disclaimer

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Atlantic City
    Posts
    932
    Well - there is no solid answer explaining my question .
    But I recall George Carlin's quote , still resonating , when I asked him the same. He reposted :

    "America is a museum of mass confusion , where written common law for all can be twisted only by lawyers , which by the way is serving them very well , so this was the purpose of writing it"...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    casselberry, fl
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by taxfree4 View Post
    Because that is what the founders who wrote it called it. If you look at a copy of the original document they are denoted as Articles not Amendments. An amendment by its very nature amends something already written, however, the first ten entries on the Bill of Rights were original writings, they weren't amending anything. After the first ten original there were succeeding amendments. There is a case out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I'll try and look for it, that says just that.

    (I am not hijacking the thread) - disclaimer
    Thanks. I'd never heard that before.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •