Harvards Opinion On The 2A
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Harvards Opinion On The 2A

  1. #1

    Harvards Opinion On The 2A

    Evidently this is what the nations best thinkers believe about the 2A.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013

  2.   
  3. aRTICLE

    This article is not in the best interests of Americans, or of the country as a whole. It makes me sick to read the tripe these "educators" try to pass off as truth because of their illigitimate sense of intelligence over the masses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  4. #3

    2nd Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Evidently this is what the nations best thinkers believe about the 2A.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013

    If this is an example of thinking then I wonder what would be an example of the inability to think.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    Wow.....ignorance. I don't know about you guys, but every seller at a gun show I've ever visited required a background check. Hmm, my buddy from MS had to use an FFL transfer from a dealer here in Memphis. OK, that argument is wrong. What's the obsession with gun shows anyway? Would they pitch a fit if the private sellers AT a gun show went outside and did it? BAN PUBLIC PLACES, YOU CAN BUY GUNS THERE WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!

    I love how they claim "safety" in gun free zones, yet completely ignore D.C., Chicago, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et cetra, et cetra, et cetra.....
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  6. #5

    gun free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    Wow.....ignorance. I don't know about you guys, but every seller at a gun show I've ever visited required a background check. Hmm, my buddy from MS had to use an FFL transfer from a dealer here in Memphis. OK, that argument is wrong. What's the obsession with gun shows anyway? Would they pitch a fit if the private sellers AT a gun show went outside and did it? BAN PUBLIC PLACES, YOU CAN BUY GUNS THERE WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!

    I love how they claim "safety" in gun free zones, yet completely ignore D.C., Chicago, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et cetra, et cetra, et cetra.....


    But there is safety in gun free zones! Safety for the criminal.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #6
    When is this rational going to be used to get rid of cars and bikes? These are the brains running our government.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Evidently this is what the nations best thinkers believe about the 2A.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013
    Best thinkers? Hardly. Most brain washed is more like it!

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Allow me to paraphrase . . .

    Despite the controversy surrounding the First Amendment, arguments about its relevancy have not been sufficiently plumbed. The Supreme Court should take on a case of "Free" speech, in which the central consideration should be the right of an individual to express their opinion publicly under the First Amendment. Such a Right was important to the development of the young country 250 years ago, but the world has changed and the Government has become more sophisticated now and can satisfactorily decide the best course for the Nation. It doesn't need opinionated amateurs and self-righteous intellectuals participating in the process. The case should specifically address personal opinion and the dubious value of expressing it publicly, which could serve to arouse the passions of a susceptible populace with detrimental effect to the Nation. But while legalistic arguments—the phrasing of the amendment itself and the framers’ intent—will be at the center of the debate, no matter what the justices ultimately decide, we believe that a constitutional protection of an individual right to Free Speech, especially in the printed form which can be so widely distributed, is potentially injurious to the country's tranquility. Instead, the First Amendment should be replaced with federal statutes designed to tightly regulate the publication of unauthorized opinions.
    How do ya think that would fly?
    Last edited by Ektarr; 11-30-2007 at 10:27 PM.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  10. #9
    Why don't we just remove any part of the constitution we don't agree with. It's just a piece of really old paper. This of course is obsurd. I can't place exact information on it, but I wonder if they read the article Harvard did a few months ago about how handgun carry decreased violent crime. I guess they didn't agree with it so they removed all record of it.
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  11. Hitler could not have said it better.God help us.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast