Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never asserted that the founding fathers thought guns should be restricted back in the 18th century I'm asserting that in large urban environments in the 21st century, we find the need to restrict the possession of guns. The two issues are unrelated.
But how do you justify it now that its obviously ineffective & only makes it easier for the lawless to walk all over you?
I will wager that the Supreme Court overturns the Appeals Court's decision.
The problem with you & Mr Church is you think this is politics. Its not. Its a judicial thing now & they cannot simply ignore the law because some morons think its outdated. They can only decide acording to the constitution & can only interpret it acording to original intent. The liberal crybaby socialists are certainly entitled to try & amend the constitution, thats the only legal way, but by next month the idea that you can just say a hunk of our constitution is outdated & ignore it will be laid to rest.
Some justices might not like it. IMO at least one didn't from viewing the testimony, but even tho he didn't like it he refused to accept the idea that DC's legislation was "reasonable" or that it was only a militia right.
The problem with you & Mr Church is you think this is politics. Its not. Its a judicial thing now & they cannot simply ignore the law because some morons think its outdated. They can only decide acording to the constitution & can only interpret it acording to original intent. The liberal crybaby socialists are certainly entitled to try & amend the constitution, thats the only legal way, but by next month the idea that you can just say a hunk of our constitution is outdated & ignore it will be laid to rest.
Some justices might not like it. IMO at least one didn't from viewing the testimony, but even tho he didn't like it he refused to accept the idea that DC's legislation was "reasonable" or that it was only a militia right.
On leave from the violence he had survived in the war in Iraq, a young Marine was so wary of crime on the streets of his home town that he carried only $8 to avoid becoming a robbery target.
They took it, turned his pockets inside out, took what he had, and told him since he was a Marine and didn't have any money, he didn't deserve to live. They put the gun to his neck and shot him," Holt said
On leave from the violence he had survived in the war in Iraq, a young Marine was so wary of crime on the streets of his home town that he carried only $8 to avoid becoming a robbery target.
They took it, turned his pockets inside out, took what he had, and told him since he was a Marine and didn't have any money, he didn't deserve to live. They put the gun to his neck and shot him," Holt said
A tragedy. I see you want use this young man's death to further some petty political cause.
No - I want you - someone who does not have the qualifications to even shine this or any other Marines shoes - to admit that the "Good Guys" need protection also - you seem to fail to realize that - and your own words state that - I'm not sure "good people" need much protection.
No - I want you - someone who does not have the qualifications to even shine this or any other Marines shoes - to admit that the "Good Guys" need protection also - you seem to fail to realize that - and your own words state that - I'm not sure "good people" need much protection.
For someone who never even served, you hold yourself in pretty high regard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.