Re: Kiddie exercises his right to bear arms

hwhit wrote:
...
> > May be you are right. may be "People" can not have two meanings there.
> > On the other hand in those days "arms" meant something different.
> 
> so did speech, in those days.  they didn't have the internet, movies, or
> video games.  but, the principles apply to these NEW forms of speech as well
> 
> technology changes.  principles don't
> 

So, what kind of "arm" you think you can you keep home?
any "arm"?

Do you think that "speech" also includes propaganda of
a legal for profit corporate entity?
Does your pharmaceutical manufacturer have total "freedom of speech"?
Does your legal drug and alcohol manufacturer have "freedom of speech"?

 "technology changes.  principles don't"
Just take a look at the ammendments to the constitution. Do you see
any changes? Duh



> whit
> 
> > In those days they had no automatic weapons, no cesium 137 bombs, no
> Napalm,
> > no tanks, no bombers, no cluster bombs, no home-made anthrax powder, no
> > genetically modified camel-pox, no AK-47 dealers selling to gangs and
> > no IRscopes with laser guides. In those days they did not even have
> > the nut cases that the wars of today seem to generate. No Malvos,
> > No Timothy McVeighs, maybe not even war-traumatized militia comming
> > back home to beat and gun down their own wife and kids.
> > Maybe some things have to change, some definitions cleared.
> >
> > Have a good one too, Kevin.