|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
VA: Register that computer, you subversive!
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
|
There
are 6 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
FULL TEXT BELOW:
Letter-writer Jerry Schneider thinks the Second Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms since the Founding Fathers knew only muzzle-loaders ["You may bear arms--but only rod-and-ball variety," April 14].
Using the same illogical process, Mr. Schneider's use of his dangerous assault computer to attack the Bill of Rights isn't protected under the First Amendment, since the Founding Fathers' concept of written communication was limited to the use of crude printing presses and quill pens.
He can't have it both ways.
Dennis J. O'Connor
Prince George |
| Comment by:
stefan.357@rrd.com
(4/24/2006)
|
| The best way to figure out what the framers would have done is ask yourself "What were they trying to accomplish with that amendment or law?" It is not as difficult as you might imagine. They did not try and hide their reasons, they wrote about them all the time. And their reasons are just as relevant today as they where in the 1700's. |
| Comment by:
gdhanddym@bellsouth.net
(4/24/2006)
|
You're right Stefan. There is no mystery as to how the framers arrived at there conclusions. There are volumes of letters and papers left in their own ink. However, a dangerous perspective subscribed to by many liberals nowadays is that of the "living constitution". One that is relevant to our modern world and flexible to the point of changing the very nature and intent of the original. If the legislator or jurist believes a part of the document is no longer relevant they can change it. They can do so even to the point of incorporating foreign laws as some of the Supreme Court justices have already done.
To the "new breed" original intent is no longer important. |
| Comment by:
A & O
(4/24/2006)
|
| The truth never changes. If it was true then, it is true now. Gravity is still working today, just like yesterday. Only those that don't have a clue as to what is true would opt for a floating set of guidelines to operate their lives on. |
| Comment by:
molonlabe
(4/25/2006)
|
| I read his article and I could not imagine how anyone with even a little intelligence could be so stupid and misinformed. He should get an award. |
| Comment by:
Mitymite
(4/25/2006)
|
| I still want someone to 'splain to me just what is a "rod-and-ball" weapon. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law." --Francis Bacon, From "The Essays of Counsels, Civil and Moral" |
|
|
