Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

The court could easily argue that those restrictions are necessary, just like it's necessary that one doesn't have a First Amendment right to shout "fire" in a theater.

 

Although the supremes chose not to address it in Henderson v. United States, one could infer from their unanimity in that case that they're fine with felons losing the right to firearm ownership.

 

Keep on proving Writethinking right.

 

Sounds like she doesn't think Obama is doing enough.

 

Of course that would be the result. But I'm very curious about how they'd support it.

The right to keep "and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Yeah, Hil? Whatcha got in mind?

 

Again, that's not what the Amendment says. That's not even how it reads.

 

Also, why do graphic images have to run so large on the new site? Can't they be edited down?

Another important issue of these turbulent times ...

 

But you could argue that that's what it infers ...

 

I'm sure it would have something to do with restricting the number of shots fired in a single round. How many U.S. shootings, in the average year, are performed with those kind of weapons? Very few, I bet.