I think @Joe35357's point could have been more explicatory. Platitudes are easy targets, dude! @GSpellchecker
@MistaHix 80% support for a "law" is one thing; but support for a constitutional amendment is quite another...as we've seen.
-
-
@emlynaddison I agree. Doubtful you'd even get close. You were talking of bans. How do you ban guns without amending constitution?
-
@MistaHix The 2nd amendment doesn't technically have to be struck so long as people agree to 1-shot muskets. THAT was the intent. -
@emlynaddison but it doesn't say "musket", does it? What do you think the NRA lawyers would do to that argument?
-
@MistaHix "Arms" would--COULD--have only been intended to mean what it meant when it was defined: muskets. Strange but inescapable. -
@emlynaddison Do you seriously think you can get the courts to rule only muskets allowed? If not, move on.
-
@emlynaddison Im British mate! I know all this. *We* didnt have the constitutional issues you face. Nor history/culture. Thats the point.
-
@MistaHix This is why I think to beat constitutional fundamentalists you have to be even more literal: single-shot rifles and that's IT. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.