That's twice in the space of a few minutes you've gotten a reply in before me so i had to edit my post!

Oh, horsehockey.

Explain this to me, since you're clinging to the antiquated interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

How is it possible that the phrase "the right of the people" in the First Amendment can mean each of us individually, and "the right of the people" in the Fourth Amendment can mean each of us individually, but for some reason in the Second Amendment, "the right of the people" means some collective right only for those in the militia?

It makes no sense. None at all.

Regardless, the SCOTUS has finally laid your incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment as securing a "collective right" to rest.

To some, the Constitution becomes meaningless when a decision is handed down they don't like. To others, it retains it's meaning as a foundation of our nation.

By the way, if Bush called the Constitution "meaningless" like you just did, you'd pop a gasket......

Matt

Emphasis mine - for Matt.

LOL! Old tricks huh Matt? It would be more fun if you didn't twist words to come up with you're own meaning to easily understandable sentences. We were talking about vets with mental problems. As you are fully aware of, but chose to change the topic to something completely different.

So you support vets with mental problems carrying guns in our towns and cities? Is that correct?

It's possible when you read the complete 2nd amendment and stop leaving out the first half of it.

LOL

Still haven't learned what a "?" means, huh?

Sorry, I didn't realize you needed my help in understanding the written word. I hope my previous post helped you figure out what this discussion is about.



Next time you ask a question, I'll be sure to be more helpful to you.

So sad....

Now how about quitting the game where you pretend I think all vets are mentally ill and we can talk about whether or not mentally ill people should carry guns?

Thank you for adding in the "with" word, not all vets have mental illnesses, but yes those that do, i would support them having (the right to have) guns.

Btw all of them will have gotten whatever mental health problems they have on the field as they would have been inelligable to serve otherwise. That means they are more than likely to be less likely to do anything in a civillian situation.

No need for a bunch of personal commentary and insults, Sam. I've directed none at you.

It's also possible when you want it to say something else, so you pretend that "the right of the people" can have different meanings in the same document.

It's inconsistent with logic or reason.

Matt

No but you knowingly and purposefully tried to stick me with a comment I never said, didn't mean, and it was dishonest of you to do so.

In the future, please refrain from such tactics. Try to have an honest debate.

You, too.

I never said any such thing, but you knowingly and purposefully tried to stick me with a comment I never said, didn't mean, and it was dishonest of you to do so.

Matt

Funny thing is, I never said it without the word WITH.

It's so weird to try and have a conversation with people who twist the words. Especially when the words are right here in the thread! Easy to go back and see who said what.

LOL!!!!

Isn't that comment from another thread?

Anyway, if you support McCain, then you support the war continuing and if the war continues, the kids of today will be fighting in it years from now.

Where did you get the false idea that I support McCain?



Gotta watch jumping to those conclusions. When you miss and fall flat, it's embarrassing.

Matt

You asked if i supported folks with mental illness's having the right to arms, i support the right of all vets to have them. You asked if i supported the right of people with mental illness's to have them...you do the math.