I don't mean what you say in the first part. What I mean is that some (NOT I) would tell you that the Contitution is a living document that despite what it says has to be viewed different ways. NOT changed but viewed what is says differently.

 

For example, did the right to bear arms include the right for a citizen today to have an AK57? The Founding Fathers would never have envisioned such a weapon. So, does the Constitution and it's right to bear arms include AK57's or is it a living document that has to be read differently based upon different times in our country's history?

 

You are not changing my mind because basically I agree with you but taking the point that many will take that the Constitution as literal and what is says and NOT a living document.

 

On the changing, I think that is where the argument lies. THe changing of the Constitution is going on via the courts and not the Congress.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quoted on 60 Minutes saying the Constitution is a living document and you have to read it as it relates to this time in our history and not literally like the Founding Fathers wrote it.

 

Meaning if there is a time in our history that it is right to limit our Freedom of Speech, she might agree that it is okay to limit our Freedom of Speech.

What the heck is an AK57?

However, although I own many guns, I see no need for citizens to have automatic weapons and yes, I am an NRA member. There has to be a cut-off point.

Then you know full well what it takes to get your hands on one, very few can.

Then you know full well what it takes to get your hands on one, very few can.

 

No, I dont know what it takes to get one....I wouldnt know where to start. Im assuming you mean that it takes money and that simply doesnt matter to me....I have no use for one. I do remember a time when I was little that a person could buy them in the store if Im not mistaken. And I was assuming that LLBC meant AK47 in the previous posts.

What the heck is an AK57?

 

No, I dont know what it takes to get one....I wouldnt know where to start. Im assuming you mean that it takes money and that simply doesnt matter to me....I have no use for one. I do remember a time when I was little that a person could buy them in the store if Im not mistaken. And I was assuming that LLBC meant AK47 in the previous posts.

 

Obviously, you can tell I am a gun enthusiast.:thumb:

 

But, I do believe in a person's right to own a gun.

 

In college, had to do a paper on gun rights. Starting on one side of the argument when I began my research. My research changed my mind in that I now believe it is a US citizen's right to own guns.

No, I dont know what it takes to get one....I wouldnt know where to start. Im assuming you mean that it takes money and that simply doesnt matter to me....I have no use for one. I do remember a time when I was little that a person could buy them in the store if Im not mistaken. And I was assuming that LLBC meant AK47 in the previous posts.

It takes lots of money and a class 3 permit, good luck getting one should one apply, they aren't easy to come by.

 

 

I know he meant AK47, I was just having a little fun at his expense.

Obviously, you can tell I am a gun enthusiast.:thumb:

 

But, I do believe in a person's right to own a gun.

 

In college, had to do a paper on gun rights. Starting on one side of the argument when I began my research. My research changed my mind in that I now believe it is a US citizen's right to own guns.

You know me LBBC, I have to needle you at least a little bit.

You know me LBBC, I have to needle you at least a little bit.

 

I hope a squirrel stores his acorns in your posterior.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::sssh:

I hope a squirrel stores his acorns in your posterior.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::sssh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Police intrusion is great as long as it happens to someone else.

I am kind of big on there being a REASON for the search in the first place...in other words a warrent. As far as the checkoint goes,if the police suspect that a driver is impaired,then go from there.

I am kind of big on there being a REASON for the search in the first place...in other words a warrent. As far as the checkoint goes,if the police suspect that a driver is impaired,then go from there.

 

Go from there as in get a warrant?