1 - 10 Next
I'd like to see, as "first ...law" is different from Constitution, a source or citing (with dates, exact wording, when it changed, history) for: "First federal gun law in the U.S. required all free, able-bodied men to own a military musket, powder and ball."
"And Lanza could have done eexactly the same thing with a Single-action Army." Please explain.
..."REASONABLE REGULATION ON THE POSSESSION OF LETHAL DEVICES, INCLUDING FIREARMS." Yes, indeed.
Don't conservatives want to be better? Probably not, apparently not.
Like I said earlier (very early in the comments), but can't find any more, Morgan made the statement with a "little book" because of the guest handing it to him condescendingly AS IF he'd never read it before.
Here is something worth repeating (from Steve of CA): "But since Shapiro says here he supports current laws that ban the possession of fully automatic weapons, does that mean Shapiro is anti-2nd amendment as well?"
Wow. I grew up with and have lived out a great deal, great deal, of conservative values (have home educated my children and so on). But we had a significant measure of decency then -- I'll be fifty tomorrow. Looking through the bulk of the posts here, "conservatism" is in a sad state of character.
My last sentence should have been a new paragraph -- but we can see that my editing glasses were off from the point where I needed a closing paren. The conversation here "(if it is the full video) is excellent to consider." Piers has clearly read the second amendment; he's trying to figure out where to draw a line.
Just want to mention that the statement about a "little book" has to do with the fact Ben handed a particular publication (of the Constitution -- which publications and readings, such as in Congress, vary) to Piers with a bit of condescension (a performance, almost, of how Piers Morgan certainly could not know the Constitution. The conversation, here (if it is the full video) is excellent to consider.
1 - 10 Next