Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 2:42 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 6 hrs 48 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

AT&T, Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • wilkes71 wilkes71 Jan 20, 2013 6:53 PM Flag

    Danny Glover teaches constitutional law at Texas A & M University

    Danny Glover either does not know history or is purposely misleading his pupils. Although some of the dangers he mentioned are true, the main reason for the second amendment was that there was no national army and each colony was responsible for its' own defense. There was still a threat from England as was demonstrated by the war of 1812. It can be argued that the second amendment is no longer necessary because we have a strong national army. Nearly all state "militias" have been nationalized and report to the federal government. However, the right to own a gun is not based solely on the second amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids gun ownership.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Lady lost control of her car yesterday. All cars banned until govt determines fault. Who sold her the car? What was the horsepower?

      • 2 Replies to vanzinf
      • "no if's ,ands, or buts"

        What a load. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, time after time, that rights can be regulated. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening to kill someone, for instance, are not protected by freedom of speech.

        Likewise the right to bear arms is regulated and always has been. This is clearly the case to anyone with any sense. Civilians may not legally possess surface to air missiles. You cannot bear any firearms or sharp instruments on an airplane. These are "ifs, ands, or buts". If you think your right to bear arms is absolute you are mistaken.

      • vanzinf you add nothing to the conversation with your stupidity.

    • "there was no national army and each colony was responsible for its' own defense."

      The main threats were Indians and slave revolts, and revolts from non-slave tenant farmers. There was also quite a bit of ethnic conflict in those days (Scottish v/s Irish, for instance, or German v/s English). It wasn't the British. American landowners were disgruntled at the British for not allowing them to defend themselves from these domestic threats while the British Army was weak in the colonies. They were afraid a weak Federal government might do the same.

36.04-0.06(-0.17%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.