Difficulty score 15. No green.

Done

Done

done

HK look up velominati the keepers of the cog, great book, a must for all cyclists if you can find it or just go to the website and look up rule 5!

start

ding

I work shifts HK so will try to coordinate, I assume you are minus x GMT, what's the x?

I'm +7 GMT

drwho - why do you need to fall back on selective historical documents, and not answer my questions? Has the 2nd amendment ever protected us from invasion? Isn't governmental evolution natural, as humanty (hopefully) evolves? And I notice you never speak of the 14th amendment. We're not talking 1780; we're talking today. Much different world.

It's funny looking at the difference between people who get their constitutional knowledge from Buzzfeed and those that have actually studied it. Diane, I'm sorry you can't read with comprehension, but if you could, you'd clearly see the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

And yes, the supreme court already made a ruling on the 2nd amendment, the bit about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was determined to be a right of, gasp, the people. As in you and me.

1Hammer - at least you respect the supremacy of the Supreme Court! Many fundies don't. As for education, you are so, so wrong. Happy to provide details should you request, but I don't want to brag.

lol, that's cute the way you threaten to brag about made up stories.

remember, kids, everyone on the internet is a constitutional lawyer.

FYI, I do think the SC decision was wrongly decided, and I think history will prove me correct.

I guess I am wondering about the 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol and went into effect in 1920 but then a short 13 years later was annulled by the 21st amendment. How many lives would have been saved had that amendment (18th) stayed in place, yet no one really makes any calls for banning alcohol, in fact, the move is to legalize more intoxicating drugs. But many of the same folks essentially want an amendment banning firearms under the false rubric of "saving lives."

In response to a trouncing by others who seem to know their history well, Diane proposes that history will prove that she is correct on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Does this mean that "history" is something yet to happen? Will history show that I am right to be confused?

Phil - I believe GMT is -6 hours Chicago time.

Phil - Ah, that Rule 5. Now I know. Probably excellent advice for me, but, sorry no can do. Just not wired that way.

go

done

go

done, ng

HK it was meant in the nicest way of course. I take it you're not a velominati. No worries. So 13 hours difference. Normally I'd be up and about but I'm actually going straight to bed after a long night. Maybe catch up in 22 hours time!