Earl (05-21-2019)
Gun control
What exactly does this even mean? As the SCOTUS ruled, there is an individual right to own arms, and this right can be regulated.
We aren't allowed Uzis or automatic weapons anymore. So what more control do people want? And this always comes up with school shootings. What more gun control would stop those shootings?
What would stop a gang banger from a drive by shooting? Outlawing cars?
Earl (05-21-2019)
Earl (05-21-2019)
It's an obvious and deliberate misreading of your Constitution, since you don't serve in any militias - just something got up to sell guns. The problem is that you are so unaware of how extremely odd you are as an allegedly advanced culture in allowing this unrestrained slaughter, and I know you think it makes you more 'free'. The problem for most other peoples is to see in what this alleged freedom consists: you tend to seem deeply conformist to us, brainwashed almost, as this gun thing seems typically to demonstrate.
Earl (05-21-2019)
Micawber (05-21-2019)
countryboy (05-22-2019)
Earl (05-21-2019)
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
Wikipedia
Maybe the Nazi from Wales can read this while sitting in his outhouse.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller
Maybe the Nazi from Wales can read this while sitting in his outhouse.
"unconnected with service in a militia."
Earl (05-21-2019)
Earl (05-21-2019)
Funny how when the Scotus untethers the second from its actual language you don't consider it
an example of judicial activism and liberal law making, but when it does the same with Roe, you do.
Your living breathing document whispers that you are a hypocrite. A militiaman's flintlock has become a national
individual right to wield unlimited numbers of 5000 variations of highly advanced weaponry, any one of which
could take down General Washingtons entire continental army.
Earl (05-21-2019)
Clearly the (unelected) President called upon earl to advise the Supreme Court to ignore the words of the constitution (he used, after all, to work for Hitler). If you want to murder more Americans, fine, but what that has to do with outhouses, shithouses, nuthouses or other American folk-customs how is the world to know?
Earl (05-21-2019)
Bookmarks