Every one of them.
My interest was piqued when a friend informed me that signer Professor Akhil Reed Amar has been invited to bash the Second Amendment at the University of Utah Law School on October 25 at 7 PM. There is no reason to suspect that his apparent Middle-Eastern ancestry has anything to do with his anti-Second Amendment position, but because of his name his speech is likely to draw more interest than it would have prior to Septmeber 11.
Maybe the good FReepers of Utah should think about showing up to FReep the good Professor Amar (who was also one of Clinton's most vigorous defenders in academia during the impeachment debacle).
Note: I have no prior knowledge of "Viking Phoenix" or its other positions. I merely pulled this letter from its site. This same letter might have been pulled from any of a number of sites.
Oh, is that right? Then I guess Mr. Bogus & Co. will agree that the 2nd does not mention anything at all about the regulation of guns or gun ownership?
Actually, they would probably insist if only one person in the united states could own a gun, then our rights would still not be infringed, because the 2nd does not progibit regulations(in their minds).
Once again, lawyers try to explain that daylight isn't really light and the sun doesn't rise in the east, and that restrictions such as licensing and registration aren't really infringements.
This proves yet again the veracity of the statement made by Orwell that some opinions were so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them.
* ...putting to rest any misperception that the Second Amendment prohibits a wide range of effective and reasonable firearms regulations.* ...ending western culture by endorsing multiculturalism and globalism.
* ...advancing communism.
* ...spreading panic by simultaneously warning of global warming and a coming ice age.
* ...a regressive tax scheme to transfer wealth from those who produce to those who do not.
* ...limiting speech to only those leftist causes which we deem appropriate.
* ...controlling the minds of the next generation by undermining the parent/child bond and promoting government directed indoctrination.
* ...achieving peace through capitulation to terrorists and rogue nations.
* ...judging guilt or innocence on the grounds of the accused perpetrators political agenda.
* ...rendering the environment uninhabitable by declaring it off limits to human use.
* ...saving the lives of death row murderers while exterminating as many innocent unborn children as possible.
Our principles jog alongside.
On hand was the following, AR-15, M17S Bullpup, Hy-Point 9mm carbine, SKS, Colt M1991 .45, Baretta 92FS, Ruger .40 ACP, New England Arms 45-70, Taurus .357, Ruger .22 rifle, plus various shotguns both 12 and 20 gauge, pumps, over and under, and autos. We could have started our own war.
KABOOM!
Much to do about nothing.
I encourage you and your supporters to focus on the real issue facing our country and it isn't the First Amendment. The central issue on which we all should focus is what sort of free speech legislation and policies will best prevent the dissemination of inane drivel by self-important over-educated idiots that plagues our country today.
There is NOT a comma there, blast it!
Every one of them.
There are a couple of questions I would love to ask these distinguished and intelligent gentlemen. (1) You have singled out the tool of choice for the perpetrators of this violence you speak of, but can you describe the root causes of this violence? (2) Would the loss or reduction of the deterrent affect, provided by an armed population, be far worse than a reduction of gun related violence? Isn't the threat of tyranny far greater that the present weakness in our social fabric? (3)Wouldn't it be far wiser for government to examine why Americans are violent...and use guns? (hint:drug prohibition)And shouldn't we use our resources to reduce the sociopath tendencies of many Americans.....And not focus on a tool that the large majority of Americans posses and use legally...and with care?
Not true--if it were true they would cite the U.S. Supreme Court cases that say that (Of course the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has said an individual does not have a right to a gun)
These idiots want to make the masses believe that regulated means burdened with rules and nonsense.
Just insert speech or its equivalent in place of firearms and imagine that they are talking about the right to free speech.
You quickly get the idea of what their brand of reasonable is and it is somthing aligned with communism.
....from orthodox Marxism to Left-wing socialism.
The best policy would be to follow the 2nd amendment and eliminate gun control. That would reduce killings and violence.