If you don’t know, how can you state that it was “full of armed personnel”?
I say that the opposite is true.
The Constitution explicitly denies the government any authority whatsoever to impose even “reasonable”restrictions” on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Not only the Second Amendment, but also the Tenth denies this power to the federal government in particular.
There is, and can be, no such thing as a reasonable gun control law—especially at the federal level—without first specifically amending the Constitution to allow it.
In any event, we did not lose as much of this right as we have, by failing to surrender it in bits and pieces at a time, every time the gungrabber movement demands that we give up a little bit more. It is a failure to stand up for this right, and to stand solidly against every attempt to infringe it, that has costs us as much as we’ve lost of this right.
“Moderates” such as yourself are as much to blame for those as those who overtly seek to deprive us of this right.
As long as we continue in this direction, we will only keep on giving in to more and more “reasonable”restrictions upon this right, until there is nothing left to give up.
Get with the times! Get a penis extender and surrender your other weapon!
Opponents of gun control keep repeating this little bit of blather, and it keeps not being true. The Heller decision was even quoted earlier in this thread (here):
The first amendment isn’t absolute - fighting words aren’t protected, incitement to violence isn’t protected, confidentiality agreements can be enforced between citizens and the government or between citizens themselves. There’s an enormous body of case law defining just how far the protection from illegal search and seizure guaranteed by the fourth amendment extends; there’s case law on the protections from self-incrimination offered by the fifth amendment, on what exactly constitutes a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" (Amendment VII), and what qualifies as “cruel and unusual punishment” (Amendment VIII).
Just what is it about the second amendment that you think exempts it from the kind of examination and judicial interpretation that the rest of the Bill of Rights is subject to?
It’s kind of funny that it is those of you on the gungrabber side who like to accuse those of us who support gun rights as having issues regarding the size and perceived inadequacy of our genitals. And yet, you only ever hear mention of such issues from you gungrabbers, never from those of us on whom you are trying to pin this.
This sure looks to me, every time it occurs, like a classic textbook case pf psychological projection. You’re the ones who keep obsessively bringing the whole issue up; which seems to make it rather obvious that it is you who have the issue.
Of course you would rather not bring up your small penises. Who would?
Great post, Enginerd.
I’m sure the FF did not want crazies and criminals in the well-regulated militia.
Without diving into the middle of all the invective and strawmanning, I’ll just point out that the Navy Yard shooter, who apparently thought people were following him and putting microwaves into his head, may have been acting (as far as he could tell) in legitimate self-defense.
Thanks - I’m glad at least somebody read it. I notice Bob Blaylock skipped over the question on his way to argue about penis size.
Once again, my point is made.
I’ve never said anything about my own intimate parts, nor about any possible or perceived inadequacies thereof. There certainly is not any way that you would ever know whether or not I had any such inadequacies. You could only know of your own inadequacies; and you could only be qualified to speak of your own inadequacies; which is what it truly appears that you are doing, when you try to project your own inadequacies on to me.
So why aren’t these laws being enforced? Lack of will? Of funding?
Well, run that past Bricker and get your turn at the “plenary power of the legislature” lecture.
I agree that the AWB was a waste of time. You should’ve just banned (or far more heavily and effectively restricted) semi-automatic handguns.
You have a revolver that can carry more than 7 rounds and can be reloaded more quickly than dropping a magazine and replacing it? What model is it? It sounds unusual. Smith and Wesson 617? Ruger Single-Ten? Some funky custom job?
Or is your 1911 defective or substandard in some way?
Or by the fact that background checks are required to be destroyed within 24 hours? Who is supposed to do this investigation of lies on background checks? Where are the records they can use to identify such lies?
Gee, you make it sound like the law is designed to fail.
I got one of these 8 shot .357s.
I’m more of an auto shooter myself so I can reload my 1911 faster. Revolver specialist Jerry Miculek is faster with a revolver. You can see here:
You *need *eight shots with a .357? You hunt Tyrannosaurus?
Zombies! Obama already has the virus, ready to release it at any moment.
Who said anything about need? More like want. It’s my competition revolver. I generally (rather always) shoot .38 short colts out of it, because the case is shorter so they wiggle less in the moon clips for faster reloads.
I don’t know what a “moon clip” is, and I would prefer to keep it that way.
A 10 shot Smith 617 revolver would be a lot better for zombies.
Why?