8
8
0
Don't get mad at the writers stupidity. Laugh along with me. "They cite this Amendment as if it were intended to be unchangeable for all time." Just an example of this persons lack of knowledge. The 2A can be changed, just not at this guy's whims. While it is in effect it is the law of the land.
TSgt David L., PVT Mark Zehner
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
PO3 Bob McCord, LTC Laura Wickett,
SGT (Join to see), COL Mikel J. Burroughs,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
1SG Steven Imerman, SGT Gregory Lawritson,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, PO1 John Johnson,
MSgt David Hoffman, SSG Michael Noll,
SPC Nancy Greene, SSgt Terry P.
TSgt David L., PVT Mark Zehner
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
PO3 Bob McCord, LTC Laura Wickett,
SGT (Join to see), COL Mikel J. Burroughs,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
1SG Steven Imerman, SGT Gregory Lawritson,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, PO1 John Johnson,
MSgt David Hoffman, SSG Michael Noll,
SPC Nancy Greene, SSgt Terry P.
WILCOX: 2nd Amendment Relic Of Early Republic
Posted from allotsego.com
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
SGT (Join to see), to me what is laughable is the self-righteous attitude of the writer, while really not understanding why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. He talks of the good things in the SAFE Act, which has made a large number of New Yorkers criminals because they refuse to turn in or register their semi-automatic firearms that are labeled as weapons of war or assault weapons. He talks about unreasonable amounts of ammunition. This clown has no idea of how much ammo one can go through in one range session. That is what is laughable.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
This guy has the brains of a socilast SJW who would be the first to give up everyone elses rights to avoid anything happening to what he thinks is important.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
SGT (Join to see)
The author of the article has a fairly flawed set of arguments. However, his overall idea is actually correct, in Constitutional terms.
The Constitution, by design, is open to interpretation in most areas. The Courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, decide the Constitutionality of legislation.
If any part of the Constitution is Amended, then any new legislation passed pertaining to that new amendment is subject to judicial review.
Like it or not, that’s the reality. That’s how the Constitution was written, and that’s how the framers of the Constitution intended to write it.
The Constitution, by design, is open to interpretation in most areas. The Courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, decide the Constitutionality of legislation.
If any part of the Constitution is Amended, then any new legislation passed pertaining to that new amendment is subject to judicial review.
Like it or not, that’s the reality. That’s how the Constitution was written, and that’s how the framers of the Constitution intended to write it.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Exactly! I cannot see any majority of states approving that Amendment soon.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google