Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Ahhh!

  1. #1
    Member Kyle1337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    New Mexico


    I was in my local gun store (The Outdoorsman Of Santa Fe) not gonna push a store name on ya! Anyway, I got talking with one of the sales guys, and he was like 'oh if the supreme court rules in favor of gun owners for the DC gun ban case, A, B and C will happen in other states." I got thinking about it. Why the hell is there even a debate on any of the bill of rights? Honestly, put yourself in the shoes of our founding fathers, if you had to draft a constitution, would you be vague, "grey", or leave holes for future generations to fill in. No, of course you wouldn't you'd be as black and white as possible so there will never ever be a debate of the document you'd written. WTF?!?!?, I'm sorry this just steams me. Its black and white, the constitution is black and white, now if you look or try to read present day bills or laws trying to be passed, they read more cryptic than the book of revelations. They're being gray and vague on purpose to pass future laws supporting other vague laws left for liberal interpretation supporting other vague laws or laws so damn hard to understand they can be interpreted by a lawyer for any reason or side. Okay I'm done venting, thanks for listening.

  2. #2
    MLB is offline
    Supporting Member MLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Buffalo, NY
    Though I'd like to agree, I don't. I find the Second Amendment to be oddly worded and vague. Simple and clear is easy to write, even I can do it, just lop off the (irrelavent?) militia phrase.

    I like to think that the authors of the Bill of Rights were intelligent folks. They didn't throw fluff in there for the hell of it. As much as I wish it to be otherwise, I don't see the second amendment's intent as providing for "personal protection" in general. It seems to me that the intent was to keep the people armed as a deterrent to the Federal Government. If a by-product of that leads to other benefits, that's one thing, but unfortunately, they specified a reason for gun ownership.

    Taking half of a sentence and declaring it clear is misleading. I understand your frustration though.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mike Barham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Arizona, baby!
    I generally agree with MLB. It is the militia clause in the 2A that has allowed the anti-gun lobby to make the "collective rights" argument.

    In any case, even the Founders recognized that rights are not absolute.
    Employed by Galco Gunleather - / Veteran OEF VIII

    Donate to the Christian and Stephanie Nielson Recovery fund: .

    All opinions, particularly those involving politics and Glocks, are mine and not Galco's.

  4. Remove Advertisements

  5. #4
    Junior Member SemoShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    I like your new avatar!!

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Santa Teresa, NM


    There was some confusion about what the 2A meant shortly after it was
    written. One of the founding fathers attempted to clarify it by writing
    about it in the "Federalist Papers." If I recall correctly, it was John Adams.

    Anyway, we'll find out the modern interpretation in a couple of months.

    I hope we can live with it afterwards.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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