I'd bet we all know why the 'abuse' button was used.
I may disagree with your post, but will defend to my last electron your right to post it!
Thanks, but I'd be more happy if you guys defended the 2nd from State infringements instead.
>Thanks, but I'd be more happy if you guys defended the 2nd from State infringements instead.
Am watching the cases in DC where a number of plaintifs are sueing the city for jsut such an infreigement. Tehy may make some headway, but until that is decided, other advances are unlikely.
Am writing a piece so some here will have an understanding of the legal problems we face.
30 Reader's Digest version follows:
"Well-regulated militia" is the most dangerous phrase for us pro-gun people.
BOR does not say; "The ability to openly criticize elected officials being necessary in a Republic, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" and "Newspapers being necessary to educate the people about the workings of the elected officials, Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press"....
Had they done so, we would certainly be free to speak out to criticize the elected officials, but would I have the right to say what I believe about my wacko neighbor who painted his house purple?
Had those reason/excuse phrases been included, certainly newspapers would have been free to report on the workings of elected officials, but could some government censor control what my local sports writer says about the idiots running the Orlando Magic?
That's the problem with "Well-Established Militia being necessary..." phrase. Had Jefferson. Madison, Monroe and the boys just guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, without any reason/excuse, there could be no arguments or decisions such as in Wilson, (SCOTUS, 1939) that got into the whole militia thing and opened the floodgates for more.