Quote:
Originally Posted by EmporerEJ
Once again, it has been the law of the land for more than 200 years now, the supreme court doesn't need to "agree" on it.
Your statment is inaccurate. Despite many attempts by anti-gun groups, the Supreme ciurt has UPHELD the right. That isn't "surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on," that is very clear.
YOUR creation of the facts is what's in question. My version is the law of the land. My gun sits comfortably in my pocket.
|
You may want to buy a banana for that pocket, in case the supreme court decides otherwise.
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Cruci...ens.3891291.jp
Apparently the issue isn't all that settled.
Quote:
The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
America's most eminent constitutional lawyers are split on whether this limits gun ownership to members of militias, a debate fuelled by the vagueness of the original phrasing.
But no test case has managed to resolve the issue: the last time the Supreme Court tried was 70 years ago, and it failed to issue a definitive judgment.
|
But hey, keep going. Just don't scratch yourself down there when you got that in your pocket. Messy.