What do you think of a 10 million gun owner march on Washington?

Twist words. we're the guns purchased legally?

You're the one twisting words, Assup. Lanza was not legally in possession of the guns. It's the same as if he had stolen the guns. The gun may have been purchased legally, but not by him, nor for him.

Truth hurts, doesn't it, Assup.

Actually, an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ... Something that wasnt part of the main document and wasnt added for a number of years after the main document was ratified. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is that a statement that suggests the Amendments have less value or authority because they were not a part of the "original" document?

You're the one twisting words, Assup. Lanza was not legally in possession of the guns. It's the same as if he had stolen the guns. The gun may have been purchased legally, but not by him, nor for him.

Truth hurts, doesn't it, Assup. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Maybe she left them to him in her will.

Maybe she left them to him in her will. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

And maybe there is a law, also, in Connecticut that prohibits an heir from inheriting if the heir is responsible for the death of the person devising the items to the heir.

You are what you eat.

And maybe there is a law, also, in Connecticut that prohibits an heir from inheriting if the heir is responsible for the death of the person devising the items to the heir. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Humor escapes you doesn't it?

Humor escapes you doesn't it? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No. Not when something or someone is humorous.

What I thought...You take yourself way too serious...

What is your point?

That "Amendment" was part of the original Bill of Rights. The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in September 17, 1787, but was not ratified until March 4, 1789.

Even at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the amendments in the Bill of Rights were already being kicked around by the Convention members. But due to the urgency of replacing the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was rushed to the states for ratification with the understanding that the new Congress would immediately act on adding the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment included).

So Congress first met on March 4, 1789 and, by September of that year, Congress sent the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights was ratified effective December 15, 1791. It got done in under 3 years. Considering how slow communications were back in those days and the difficulty in holding elections, that's pretty damn fast.

More importantly, though, from a legal point of view, there is no substantive difference between the original document and the amendments. They all have equal validity. So, the Constitution includes the amendments. They are not separate or lesser.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

+1

Why Washington. Go to Teheran or Kabul.