• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why We Need Guns[W27, 182]

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“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.” The Right to Bear Arms, the Second Amendment, is one of the most important aspects of the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, through the test of time many opposing forces have and still are trying to: deride, dilute, degrade, and suppress our right- be it the Obama Administration or the UN gun ban. As citizens of a free country, we should all do our part in preserving our heritage and freedoms because there is a blatantly obvious need for the protection of citizens’ ability to own and maintain firearms. This alone should be enough concern for you to ask yourself the question: “What should I do about it?”

Ask yourself: “Why do citizens need the protection of the right to own firearms?” There are multiple answers to this simple question.

The Founding Fathers saw the need for such a protection as they were familiar with the political reasoning of Baron de Montesquieu, William Blackstone, and John Locke; that governments derive invested powers from the people to protect and serve its citizens. On the same timeless reasoning, if the citizens of the government deem the government to have failed to properly serve the people or have broken its obligations to the people, then the social contract between the people and the government is severed; and it is the citizens’ duty and obligation to overthrow an unjust government infringing on the citizen’s rights. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

However, if the citizens’ ability to possess firearms has been suspended or suppressed, then the citizens would be helpless to fight back at an unjust government and would be put into an extremely dangerous position. For that reason, there was intense arguing of why protection of the right to bear arms had been left out of the constitution during ratification. Once the Constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights was quickly added that guaranteed many freedoms; one being protection of the ability to own firearms. Enabling citizens to own firearms also allows citizens to protect themselves from domestic disputes that turn ugly and also from people who may intend to harm them. Robberies, muggings, trespassings, and other crimes are often kept in check by legal gun-owning citizens.

A great example is 69 year-old Ethel Jones. When Ethel heard strange sounds outside her Alabama home at 3 A.M. she grabbed her gun from underneath the pillow next to her. She ended up finding an intruder inside her bedroom, forcing her to shoot him in the abdomen. The intruder survived and faced charges of second-degree burglary. Another example is the case of career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley. In November of 2009, Kevin Dudley walked into an Alabama business with a shotgun to commit armed robbery. Shoppers were able to distract Dudley long enough for the owner of the store to retrieve his gun and defend himself. The owner ended up shooting and killing the criminal. Later, the police found that Dudley had been tied to several robberies in the area as well as a recent murder.

On another note, America’s first freedom, the First Amendment, protects freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, and of assembly. However, in retrospect, it is the Second Amendment that allows any “rights” to be guaranteed at all. The freedoms listed in the First Amendment are defended and backed up by armed citizens; who in turn are protected by the right to own arms- all governments are intimidated by armed citizens. The United States has always been all about personal freedom and integrity for her citizens, and the privilege to own arms ranks just as importantly. Possibly the most iconic image in the U.S. is the privileged freedom of the right to bear arms. You can view our Socialist neighbors in Europe, and see what a difference this makes in the relationship between the people and the government, and even the mentality of the citizens of those governments. They do not mind the government exercising more power or imposing on their “rights” because in that part of the world for the longest time, the citizens there have always been subordinate to the governmental authority; and have at times suffered the consequences.

Speaking of consequences, now would be a good time to again ask yourself, “What are the dangers without the guarantees of the Second Amendment?” There is no such thing as a “free” country where civilians are not allowed to own arms, but members of law enforcement are. (quoted from freedomkeys.com) “In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.” The devastating numbers are a testimonial of the grim possibilities when you couple a tyrannical government with unarmed and defenseless citizens. As previously stated, all of the rights that we enjoy are protected by the Second Amendment. “[The right to bear arms] is America’s first freedom, the one right that protects all others, [perhaps most importantly], “…it alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear.”-(Charlton Heston, February 11, 1997).

Granted that the effort to suppress the Second Amendment ever succeeded, then what is to prevent other Socialistic individuals or organizations to nullify or deride other listed rights? Such an action would subject all other rights to potential jeopardy. Once allowed a foot into the door, it is not very unlikely that people with similar Socialistic ideals and agendas would be encouraged to wage war on our other freedoms that they do not find necessary. In fact, one of the main arguments behind the “anti-gun movement” is that because guns kill and are used in crime, gun control is therefore crime control. While it is true that murders and crimes in the U.S often involve firearms, removing firearms from the equation is not the answer.

Contrary to popular belief, statistics indicate that gun control increases crime. In 1976, the Washington D.C. City Council found it in its best interests to pass a handgun ban; consequently, D.C.’s murder rate was raised by a whopping 73% in the years to come- becoming the nation’s murder capital in 1991, despite the fact the national murder rate dropped by 11% during that time period. On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller deemed the handgun law unconstitutional by a vote of 4 to 5. In the first two years since the ban was lifted, the murder rate has decreased by 11%.

In closing, there is one final question that we should ask ourselves: “What should we U.S. citizens do? What is our responsibility?” The answer is, first of all, to be aware. Stay aware of the politics affiliated with your right to bear arms. Elect politicians that have faithful and solid ideologies- the politicians are the people who will make critical decisions while holding positions of power. The Eighteenth Amendment made alcohol illegal and the Twenty-first Amendment made alcohol legal again. It is all too possible that if everyone was not attentive, educated, proactive, and aware, that a bill in congress or an international treaty could be signed ending or suppressing the Second Amendment. We Americans, the leaders of the free world, would then wake up to a grim reality where all of a sudden, our right to arms would be non-existent.

It is critical that all Americans know that the right to bear arms is just as essential to liberty as the right of free speech and not to get too comfortable with our government. As Benjamin Franklin said, “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” The tyrannical monsters of Pol Pot, Castro, Mussolini, Mao, Hitler, Idi Amin, and Stalin began to drench the earth with the blood of millions of their own people after expropriating their arms. Don’t let history repeat itself. Especially in this day and age, the liberal media has branded an extremely negative image onto firearms and gun-owners; an image that has been indoctrinated into the American public. Both guns and gun-owners alike are portrayed as rough, edgy, and uncivilized. The logic behind gun-control is illogical, but it still manages to have an immense impact on Americans. We must defend and value our right to bear arms and never let anything convince you otherwise. Our troops overseas die so that we may live in freedom, but freedom is never free. I pray that we never let the sacrifices of our own fathers, brothers, and sons go in vain. Most importantly, the argument for guns is not about guns; it is about liberty. “Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” – Andrew Fletcher 1698.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The best answer is found in the insanity and hatred of the anti gun nuts
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The militias were Southern death squads used to kill and attack runaway slaves or those suspected of plotting slave revolts. George Mason ( the real author the 2nd Amendment via the Virginia Constitution), was paranoid about slave revolts The Southern criminal slaveholders didn't want the North interfering with their death squads. So they held the bill of rights hostage to their desire to suppress slaves with armed white militias.

Such is the noble history of the 2nd Amendment.

University of California at Davis Law Review


Was the Second Amendment adopted for slaveholders? | MinnPost
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The militias were Southern death squads used to kill and attack runaway slaves or those suspected of plotting slave revolts. Mason, the real author the 2nd Amendment, was paranoid about slave revolts The Southern criminal slaveholders didn't want the North interfering with their death squads.

Such is the noble history of the 2nd Amendment.

University of California at Davis Law Review


Was the Second Amendment adopted for slaveholders? | MinnPost
400 things say otherwise but HOJ is spewing the nonsense written by a fourth rate law professor named BOGUS

repeat spam-still as stupid as it was when you first posted that garbage
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
400 things say otherwise but HOJ is spewing the nonsense written by a fourth rate law professor named BOGUS

repeat spam-still as stupid as it was when you first posted that garbage
Translated: you can't rebut the scholarly article and are reduced again to babbling personal attacks. Like clockwork!
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Translated: you can't rebut the scholarly article and are reduced again to babbling personal attacks. Like clockwork!
no serious scholar even acknowledged that bogus turd. why did those in non-slave holding states support the second amendment

I guess you are convinced that it was slave revolts-not the British that motivated the second amendment

but we don't have slaves now so the argument is completely worthless

I have a great idea-you dropped that turd on this board-you defend it as being accurate rather than arguing by proxy

I can do the same-I submit Sanford Levinson's "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" written by a former Yale Law Journal Editor teaching at a top 20 school
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
no serious scholar even acknowledged that bogus turd. why did those in non-slave holding states support the second amendment

I guess you are convinced that it was slave revolts-not the British that motivated the second amendment

but we don't have slaves now so the argument is completely worthless

I have a great idea-you dropped that turd on this board-you defend it as being accurate rather than arguing by proxy

I can do the same-I submit Sanford Levinson's "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" written by a former Yale Law Journal Editor teaching at a top 20 school
Still can't rebut it. Not one scholarly link refuting the article. You can't.

Ah, boomsticklovers and their rants.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Not a rebuttal of Bogus' article. Keep dancing.
I haven't seen you try to defend it

probably because you don't have enough understanding of the topic to make a cogent argument why such an extreme and non-accepted viewpoint actually matters. No serious scholar has used his argument or defended it. You seem unable to actually make an argument-rather you find some bombastic BS and try to argue by proxy.

tell us why slaveowners would worry about not being able to use arms against slaves

tell us why northern non slave owners would have supported the second if that was its purpose

you cannot
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The militias were Southern death squads used to kill and attack runaway slaves or those suspected of plotting slave revolts. George Mason ( the real author the 2nd Amendment via the Virginia Constitution), was paranoid about slave revolts The Southern criminal slaveholders didn't want the North interfering with their death squads. So they held the bill of rights hostage to their desire to suppress slaves with armed white militias.

Such is the noble history of the 2nd Amendment.

University of California at Davis Law Review


Was the Second Amendment adopted for slaveholders? | MinnPost
The history of gun control was originally to disarm said slaves

Cramer: Racist Roots of Gun Control (1995)
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I haven't seen you try to defend it

probably because you don't have enough understanding of the topic to make a cogent argument why such an extreme and non-accepted viewpoint actually matters. No serious scholar has used his argument or defended it. You seem unable to actually make an argument-rather you find some bombastic BS and try to argue by proxy.

tell us why slaveowners would worry about not being able to use arms against slaves

tell us why northern non slave owners would have supported the second if that was its purpose

you cannot
Keep dancing. Bogus article in fact is directed at Levinson and his ilk. He totally demolishes them. Apparently you haven't bother to read The Hidden History.

This is rich.

Come on, try harder. Can you find a scholarly rebuttal of The Hidden History or not? If not, just give up and go home and stop looking so bad.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The history of gun control was originally to disarm said slaves

Cramer: Racist Roots of Gun Control (1995)
Attempts at distraction won't work on me.

Can you rebut The Hidden History or not? It shows that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was to arm white death squads in the south to suppress slave revolts and kill runaway slaves.

If you don't have a rebuttal, just say so. Don't change the subject. That's amateur hour for me.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,510
Reaction score
7,943
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Translated: you can't rebut the scholarly article and are reduced again to babbling personal attacks. Like clockwork!
You have been rebutted using that second rate hack so many times its pitiful. That is the ONLY professor in the nation claiming that garbage, and has been disproven time and again by others in that hacks field time and again. You must have a very mushy head beating it against the wall like you do.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system," one scholar noted, "but more than that, it was a gigantic police system."[123] Over time the South had developed an elaborate system of slave control. The basic instrument of control was the slave patrol, armed groups of white men who made regular rounds.[124] The patrols made sure that blacks were not wandering where they did not belong, gathering in groups, or engaging in other suspicious activity.[125] Equally important, however, was the demonstration of constant vigilance and armed force. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times.[126] The state required white men and female plantation owners to participate in the patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place.[127]


"Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power . to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States ¾ reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither ¾ this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.[187]"

What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion.[188] Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.[189] As previously discussed, the militia had performed woefully during the war. Virginia's militia, in particular, had disgraced itself by bolting before firing a single shot in the critical battle of Camden, South Carolina.[190] The militia were the last and [Page 346] best defense against slave insurrection but practically useless against a professional army.

Without spelling it out in so many words, Henry was raising the specter of the federal government using Article I, Section 8 powers to subvert the slave system indirectly. He was suggesting that Congress, controlled in the future by an abolitionist North, might use its constitutional authority to arm the militia to, in effect, disarm them. He did not need to explain this; everyone in Richmond would have understood this to be the import of his remarks. George Mason took up the same theme on June 14.


However, Mason's main concern was not the creation of a standing army but the preservation of the militia. Mason personally owned three hundred slaves.[201] He understood the critical role of the militia in preserving the slave system. He knew firsthand from service at the Philadelphia Convention that the North was not sanguine about the slavery compromise and he could not help fearing how Congress would exercise its authority over the militia. Mason was simply using every device possible to stoke the fires of fear, fear his audience certainly shared.
Rebuttals, anybody? Rebuttals?

I bet Turtle is googling away frantically, desperately. It's almost sad.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You have been rebutted using that second rate hack so many times its pitiful. That is the ONLY professor in the nation claiming that garbage, and has been disproven time and again by others in that hacks field time and again. You must have a very mushy head beating it against the wall like you do.
Translated: You can't rebut a scholarly article. If he's a hack, it should be easy. But you can't, can you.

God, it's embarrassing being a boomsticklover
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Keep dancing. Bogus article in fact is directed at Levinson and his ilk. He totally demolishes them. Apparently you haven't bother to read The Hidden History.

This is rich.

Come on, try harder. Can you find a scholarly rebuttal of The Hidden History or not? If not, just give up and go home and stop looking so bad.
LOL no real scholar has ever claimed that Bogus did any of the sort

I have to conclude that your idiotic comments are a facade for the fact that you cannot actually argue the point. Levinson's article is among the most cited and respected in this area. Bogus-not so much

I guess the difference is that I went to yale and Yale Law school's Law Journal is major league stuff

Bogus went to Syracuse and teaches at a fourth rate Law school maybe that is why you find it more convincing than something from a top professor at a top 15 law school published in the finest law review in the known world

tell us why does Bogus's BS even matter today? I guess you feel a need to try to taint gun owners with some ancestral heritage of racism because your schtick is to attack gun owners with all sorts of idiotic stereotypes?

give it up HOJ. until you can actually make a cogent argument as to why a minor league professor from a minor league lawschool actually matters, we are going to laugh at your worship of a midget
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Attempts at distraction won't work on me.

Can you rebut The Hidden History or not? It shows that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was to arm white death squads in the south to suppress slave revolts and kill runaway slaves.

If you don't have a rebuttal, just say so. Don't change the subject. That's amateur hour for me.
can you rebut cramer's argument? your friends, the Klan, wanted disarmed freemen

that is a fact of life
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You have been rebutted using that second rate hack so many times its pitiful. That is the ONLY professor in the nation claiming that garbage, and has been disproven time and again by others in that hacks field time and again. You must have a very mushy head beating it against the wall like you do.
He went to the pound looking for a champion dog to take home with him but all that was left was a flea bitten mangy mutt. But he took the mutt home and tells everyone who will listen that his mutt won the Westminster Dog Show
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
LOL no real scholar has ever claimed that Bogus did any of the sort

I have to conclude that your idiotic comments are a facade for the fact that you cannot actually argue the point. Levinson's article is among the most cited and respected in this area. Bogus-not so much

I guess the difference is that I went to yale and Yale Law school's Law Journal is major league stuff

Bogus went to Syracuse and teaches at a fourth rate Law school maybe that is why you find it more convincing than something from a top professor at a top 15 law school published in the finest law review in the known world

tell us why does Bogus's BS even matter today? I guess you feel a need to try to taint gun owners with some ancestral heritage of racism because your schtick is to attack gun owners with all sorts of idiotic stereotypes?

give it up HOJ. until you can actually make a cogent argument as to why a minor league professor from a minor league lawschool actually matters, we are going to laugh at your worship of a midget
Translated: still no rebuttal. I bet you googled away looking for one. It's almost sad.

So if you can't rebut the article, looks like you lose. Rants won't help you here.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
can you rebut cramer's argument? your friends, the Klan, wanted disarmed freemen

that is a fact of life
Hey, look, kids, Turtle's trying to draw attention away from the "danger area", the fact that he can't rebut a scholarly article which proves that the militias of the 2nd Amendment were Southern death squads armed to suppress slave revolts?

Keep dancing!
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Translated: still no rebuttal. I bet you googled away looking for one. It's almost sad.

So if you can't rebut the article, looks like you lose. Rants won't help you here.
more parrot squawking

start defending the crap you post

we know you cannot
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Madison's colleagues in the House and Senate almost certainly considered the Second Amendment to be part of the slavery compromise. Many members of the First Congress had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and were well aware that without the slavery compromise it would have been impossible to include both the Northern and slave holding states in a common Union. The Southern delegates had made it clear that there was no point in even drafting a constitution if the federal government had the power to abolish slavery. "The true question at present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be parties to the union," John Rutledge of South Carolina had told them.[297] From that point on the delegates worked mightily to produce a constitution palatable to both North and South. [298] The carefully negotiated compromise was reflected in (1) the fugitive slave provision, requiring that runaway slaves escaping across state lines be returned to their owners;[299] (2) the provision prohibiting Congress from abolishing the African slave trade until 1808 or imposing an import tax of more than ten dollars per slave;[300] and (3) provisions counting slaves as three-fifths of free persons for the purposes of apportioning congressional representation and direct taxation.[301] In effect, Madison proposed that the slavery compromise be supplemented by another constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from emasculating the South's primary instrument of slave control, and Congress acceded to that request.[302] [Page 372]
Rebuttals, anyone? Rebuttals?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,796
Reaction score
75,515
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hey, look, kids, Turtle's trying to draw attention away from the "danger area", the fact that he can't rebut a scholarly article which proves that the militias of the 2nd Amendment were Southern death squads armed to suppress slave revolts?

Keep dancing!
you are apparently unable to comprehend the stupidity of trying to argue by proxy

his article is based on supposition and bogus assumptions but I doubt you have the understanding to even deal with that

tell me HOJ, how come not a single respected scholar at a top 20 law school or at a top 20 law review has even bothered with Bogus's BS

did the anti rights minority in Heller or McDOnald cite his steaming excrement in their dissent?
 
Top Bottom