1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rush Limbaugh taken to hospital

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by BYH, Dec 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Um, tony, you sure you want to stand by that statement? :D
     
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Anyhoo, Second Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Third Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Second sure looks a lot more absolute to me.
     
  3. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Yes, you are right, the second amendment is far more absolute than any other one.
     
  4. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    The Second Amendment or the second amendment? Cos I don't think that drug dealer with an automatic is necessarily part of a well-regulated militia.
     
  5. DisembodiedOwlHead

    DisembodiedOwlHead Active Member

    Ding, ding, ding.
     
  6. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    And I don't the words "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill or the court house putting up a manger scene are necessarily parts of the government establishing a religion.
     
  7. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Still wondering why we're thinking this is headed for lock, Tony?

    Some warm-blooded folk have found their way to the thread.
     
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    I still don't think there's any reason to lock this thread ... other than liberals are being made to look silly again. ;D ;D ;D
     
  9. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    That's not what it says. The first clause only points out that a well-regulated militia is necessary, not that anyone who owns a gun should be in that militia.

    I'm more or less ambivalent to guns. I don't want to take away a law-abiding citizen's rights to own hunting rifles and weapons for personal protection, but if they were outlawed tomorrow for anyone other than military or police personnel it wouldn't break my heart.

    But we need to be clear about one thing — the second amendment does not say one must be in a well-regulated militia in order to exercise the right to bear arms. Maybe some of us (including me at times) wish it did, but it just doesn't.
     
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    If that wasn't the aim, it wouldn't have been mentioned. The strict constructionists have a hole in their consistency with this one.
     
  11. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    What's Tebow's interpretation?
     
  12. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Tebow is partial to the shotgun.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page