Government scores victory against woman who can't leave her house

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The framers don't shade things to make their point, only pro-gun people do.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The "framers" would be a "didn't," but even with that, your statement makes no sense.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The "framers" would be a "didn't," but even with that, your statement makes no sense.

Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?

Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?

Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.

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.

[RawAlex]

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.

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.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.



But hey, keep going. Just don't scratch yourself down there when you got that in your pocket. Messy.

This comes up about every 8-10 years in a different permutation.
I'm not worried.
And once again, that case is about state's rights over federal rights.
(I live in PA where the 2nd amendment is fairly safe, except for Philadelphia, which, oddly enough, is the biggest crime area. Imagine that?)

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

This comes up about every 8-10 years in a different permutation.
I'm not worried.
And once again, that case is about state's rights over federal rights.
(I live in PA where the 2nd amendment is fairly safe, except for Philadelphia, which, oddly enough, is the biggest crime area. Imagine that?)

yeah... and how many of those crimes are committed with handguns stolen from good honest citizens like you that wouldn't have needed them if someone didn't have one already?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

yeah... and how many of those crimes are committed with handguns stolen from good honest citizens like you that wouldn't have needed them if someone didn't have one already?

So, your entire world turns on what's happening in the news?
because some kid stole his mom's gun, and sold it for drugs, that gun ends up being used in a crime in philly, we should outlaw all the guns? That's your resonsible comment on the subject?

Ok...how about this as a response? How many? Can you show me more than one? Now, how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership? How many people sleep better knowing they have one. And, once again, why do YOU care what I do in my house, and person?
You are perfectly welcome to do exactly what you want. Why do you seek control over my actions?

Perhaps a life under the thumb of the crown has warped you?