answer :

來源: crab_tree 2012-12-19 12:45:59 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (1520 bytes)
本文內容已被 [ crab_tree ] 在 2012-12-19 14:11:06 編輯過。如有問題,請報告版主或論壇管理刪除.
回答: then what do not you read this?天下多蚤2012-12-19 12:42:27

"Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.” "

----- From an amicus curiae submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, signed by fifteen eminent university professors of early American history, including Pauline Maier, Fred Anderson, and Pulitzer Prizes winners Jack Rakove and Alan Taylor.

所有跟帖: 

So the liberals think the nature of government changed since 177 -天下多蚤- 給 天下多蚤 發送悄悄話 (132 bytes) () 12/19/2012 postreply 12:48:51

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”