http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/IndyCitizen/ en-us <p>I had to read your post twice before I reallized what it actually said. You are right as to how far the rule really defined the 2nd. Right after I heard the ruling I didn't think the court completely spelled out the 2nd as they should have. I said it to many of my friends and they still didn't understand that the rule verses the 2nd didn't spell out the "shall not infringe." at the end of the 2nd or the fact that the second is not about hunting or just home protection, but also about allowing the people to also remove a corrupt government.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/IndyCitizen//#c_266971 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/IndyCitizen//#c_266971 <p>I had to read your post twice before I reallized what it actually said. You are right as to how far the rule really defined the 2nd. Right after I heard the ruling I didn't think the court completely spelled out the 2nd as they should have. I said it to many of my friends and they still didn't understand that the rule verses the 2nd didn't spell out the "shall not infringe." at the end of the 2nd or the fact that the second is not about hunting or just home protection, but also about allowing the people to also remove a corrupt government.</p>