- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Would me making an argument that you want me to make serve your better? That is NOT debate. That is a ventriloquist act.
I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that your claims come without any evidence shows that your opinions are baseless.
So you deny that the Heller decision helped the anti gun party?
I have no idea either way and would be willing to examine any verifiable evidence you wish to present. Honestly - I gave it no thought at all and really think that outside of single issue gun obsessed individuals - few others have either.
I'll be taking a drive over to Silver Sevens which allows open carry before I leave Vegas.
Until then, I'll reserve comment on drunky drunks gambling with six-shooters .
its a felony in most states to be drunk while packing a loaded pistol
I'm not in most states--a most general statement.
Besides, most gunners on your side of the fence believe in open-carry under any conditions.
Cabbies have a real problem with that out here when they get continually robbed by "law-abiding" open-carriers .
so cabbies are getting robbed by "open carriers"? not denying that but I have heard no such reports
I have a suggestion: cabbies shouldn't pick up such people then
and they should pack heat. cabbies are attacked by criminals more than cops, security guards or bank guards
I'm not in most states--a most general statement.
Besides, most gunners on your side of the fence believe in open-carry under any conditions.
Cabbies have a real problem with that out here when they get continually robbed by "law-abiding" open-carriers .
Please provide verifiable of this claim that the Amendment was so divided and recognized as those two distinct parts before Heller and the right wing drum beating that set it up.
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .
Quote the law please. If so then I would find such a law to be wrong. Particularly since there are cases of Muslims being allowed to deny carrying a passenger that has even one unopened bottle of beer. Of course I also think its wrong that there are laws that deny a private company the right to refuse service to anyone that they want for any reason that they want so no big surprise there.
I don't think gun packers are a "Protected class" under TItle VII or the ADEA or the ADA
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .
Not worth my time. If you want to argue with Justice Scalia, put some leftist drum beating in a letter and send it to him.
Which means you are unable to do so.... just like I figured.
You had no real argument. If you think you do, just state it clearly and I will be happy to speak to it.
That's not responsive to what Matchlight said. He was asking you to prove your claim that the USSC had interpreted the 2A differently before Heller.
That's not true...you just chose to ignore it or didnt understand it.
The comment of RR's can be applied to many things...and when such is done....it's shown to not be a valid presumption.
Does that help clear it up?
Go read Heller.I can find absolutely no record of the Supreme Court dividing the one sentence of the Second Amendment into any PREFATORY clause and OPERANT clause before Heller. One cannot produce something which was never done.
And that is the point.
Go read Heller.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.
Republican candidates and policies and general public image set up Obama's election win.
Yep, and this is the "gun grabber"
Obama chided for allowing guns in national parks, wildlife refuges | NOLA.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?