Federal judge: DC ban on carrying gun outside home, is unconstitutional (enemy, weapon)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You are arguing that 2 comedians are more of an authority on The Constitution than law scholars who have been debating it for decades ?

Seems they agree with the Supreme Court.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Seems they agree with the Supreme Court.

DC federal judge, not supreme court.

And since they arent actually discussing the same thing in the video, you would be wrong either way.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You are arguing that 2 comedians are more of an authority on The Constitution than law scholars who have been debating it for decades ?

According to the courts ruling, the comedians proved you are no law scholar.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

DC federal judge, not supreme court.

And since they arent actually discussing the same thing in the video, you would be wrong either way.

You complained about Penn and Teller. What they are discussing is the phrase in the Constitution not this particular ruling. The Supreme Court agree's with them which is all that really matters. Others can debate it all they want.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

DC federal judge, not supreme court.

And since they arent actually discussing the same thing in the video, you would be wrong either way.

It was a ruling, based upon the US Constitution.
Shall not be infringed, is very powerful wording, where weapons are concerned(arms, doesn't just define a gun)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BentBow

According to the courts ruling, the comedians proved you are no law scholar.

I didnt claim I was a law scholar. I am saying that there are plenty of them out there that disagree with you.

And further more, I never claimed the DC law was Constitutional, nor did the 2 people in your video say it was unconsitutional.

Also, your 2 comedians think the law was saying the " The militia cant take your arms"

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BentBow

It was a ruling, based upon the US Constitution.
Shall not be infringed, is very powerful wording, where weapons are concerned(arms, doesn't just define a gun)

But the case we are discussing is about guns.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

You complained about Penn and Teller. What they are discussing is the phrase in the Constitution not this particular ruling. The Supreme Court agree's with them which is all that really matters. Others can debate it all they want.

The case in this thread is about a DC Federal judge, not the Supreme Court.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The case in this thread is about a DC Federal judge, not the Supreme Court.

You were not discussing this case. You were discussing Penn and Teller. You demeaned their understanding of the 2nd amendment as just being comedians, but as I note the Supreme Court agree's with these comedians.

Besides, they are magicians.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I didnt claim I was a law scholar. I am saying that there are plenty of them out there that disagree with you.

And further more, I never claimed the DC law was Constitutional, nor did the 2 people in your video say it was unconsitutional.

Also, your 2 comedians think the law was saying the " The militia cant take your arms"

Did you really go there? Is it ignorance, or living in a fantasy world, outside the USA?

2 comedians/magicians, that are smarter than you, explained it completely in less than 1 minute.


The video was made before this courts ruling. I didn't see them get specific either. Where you looking for it?


Who said the militia could take your arms(weapons)? We The People, are the militia. We going to take our own guns... and do what with them. Hide them from the government?