|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
40 registered members (turkey247, MTeague, dave260rem!, Morris, Dubie, RidgeRanger, AMB, CAL, lectrode, auman, rwh1, BCLC, Jmfire722, Tigger85, Lonster, jake5050, Floorman1, TexasHuntress, sw1002, jawbone, JSanford1974, Semo, M48scout, Doeslayer44, NorthFork, farmerjay, ucmducks, gobblebox, Mack1, Ray_Coon, MikeP, Offshore, imslower, sevenup, 6 invisible),
1,434
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Amendment 3
[Re: leroyb]
#1129085
10/29/14 05:54 AM
10/29/14 05:54 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,093
McCalla, AL
johnnyreb
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,093
McCalla, AL
|
I'm concerned about the way it is worded. Strictly read, it says that any infringement on the right to bear arms will be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. I understand that is a legal term with specific implications. And in the current environment that may be fine......but what happens should the court go liberal at some point in the future? Would this be the thing that allows the court to be used to infringe upon our right?
I like "shall not be infringed" better.
I still don't know what to do with this one
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
George Orwell
|
|
|
|
