Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- From: "Morton Davis" <antikerry@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:34:26 GMT
<editor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139455845.073146.235630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, it - undeniably -It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private armed
meant the right to have what was the first-rate infantry rifle of the
time, used by the world's top colonial power (Britain) and commonly
owned by individual Americans then alike. It obviously didn't mean
that individual Americans' gun rights were only to guns inferior to
military rifles. That means that the Second Amendment - if construed
logically - means all Americans should have the right to an M-16.
forces. In the Civil War, many of the units on both sides were privately
financed, uniformed and armed.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- From: RD (The Sandman)
- Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- From: D.L. Man
- Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- References:
- All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- From: D.L. Man
- Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- From: editor@xxxxxxxxxxx
- All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Prev by Date: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Next by Date: Kitten With a Glock
- Previous by thread: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Next by thread: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|