If we read the 1st Amendment as nonsensically as Olbermann reads the 2nd, his very job wouldn’t exist, because freedom of the press would extend only to manually-operated printing presses, and not to television. And Olbermann would not be allowed to say any words that didn’t exist in 1791. Further, while Congress couldn’t make a law abridging freedom of speech, the state legislatures could.
|
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://
|
|
Tonights? |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
By the way, let’s have someone challenge Oblermann’s implication that fewer guns in the country would mean fewer suicides. |
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://
|
|
I wonder why he picked exclusively on Scalia when all 9 justices agreed with the "individual right", just disagreeing on where the limits of the right ended. Of course, the "facts" have never gotten in the way of Olbermann’s opinion. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, that isn`t very complicated: For the purposes of forming a state militia, you’re entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of arms in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed — the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon. Stuff like that. Satire....has to be. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|