[Travis McGee]

Certainly, Americans have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean? Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns?

Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.

[BenLurkin]

[GRRRRR]

Got AMMO??

[harpseal]

I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.

By looking at the history, when there were no restrictions on this we did not have people sucessdfully hijacking aircraft. That is the simple answer. Clearly, if some of the passengers had been armed with firearms and willing to resist there would not have been the aircraft flying into the WTC and the Pentagon.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.

Remember, these are the same kind of people who, when Clinton opined that the definition of "is" might mean something other than what "is" means, nodded their head in agreement.

[thisiskubrick]

Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.
I've heard libertarians argue that the 2nd ammendment, if it was truly followed, would allow people to carry guns on airplanes. This would be a "good thing" because then nobody would dare start a fuss with armed passengers on board.. sounds dumb to me but I sort-of see the reasoning.

But personally, I don't give a rip about the 2nd ammendment. If our "right to bear arms" is supposed to protect us from the goverment, it hasn't done a very good job so far. The goverment has more power than ever, and drug gangs and other criminals have more firepower than ever. The average Joe gets taxed by the gov't and worries about armed lunatics of all kinds. Great.

[Squantos]

But even speech is not absolutely protected. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to free speech does not allow one to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."

Old Oliver and this polidiot are incorrect again. If there is a fire I have every right to yell fire thus in the exercise of free speech comes trust and responsibility to use it correctly. Just as my right to keep and bear arms the constitution says "shall not be infringed" thus that same trust "must be extended to each and every citizen until they "individually" are proven to be untrustworthy. Key on individually verses the collective cloud of guilt currently over the heads of all law abidding citizens who know that a 1911 .45ACP is better, faster and more efficent than a 911 phone call followed by the recording ....."please hold for the next available operator" anyday.

This incremental BS was highlighted in the thread on FR yesterday about the polidiots, presstitutes and their money mongers having armed protective details and armored transport. Those same POS elitist socialist SOB's are fighting to keep you a victim but in reality they know what the 2nd Amendment says and means thus they placate the masses with a concealed handgun law as both a source of revenue by selling us our RKBA and slowing down the inevitable day in court at the SCOTUS.

That day may never come as the right of some freak to molest children or the sick art of robert mapelthorps aka bullwhip hanging out of his ass, are priority in the SCOTUS versus the right to self defense and the 2nd amendment..........Arggggggggh !

Join the GOA, NRA, Liberty Bells, Second Amendment Sisters, your individual states rifle associations , Mothers in arms and JPFO today ! No matter what one thinks of one group or the other they are tools. Tools to be applied to the socialist trash who think the constitution is something to use as a doormat......Fight back now with a soapbox, jury box and ballot box before the ammo box is opened.

Stay Safe Travis, excuse my rant....

[Joe Brower]

This guy sounds like one of those liberal pinheads who likes to woo people with phrases like "You have the right not to get shot", as if that were something that could be garuanteed by government decree. Typical liberal needledick who tries to talk out of both sides of his face.

[facedown]

Just read the damn words, fool. The meaning has not changed.

Just damn.©

© mhking

[The Toad]

So, I guess the guy who wrote the article would also agree that the 1st Admendment does not apply to e-mails or other forms of electronic communication since they did not exist in the late 1700's.

You gotta love the anti-gun rights crowd's fallacious arguments.

[Noumenon]

All the article tells us is that there's no point in debate with statist criminals like this.

We'll settle this and many other questions in the next American Civil War.