Can your read and comprehend even the simplest of statements? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT???? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
you guys are much better off ignoring IB, he's used to it in the real world, and functions much better when he obeys all those little voices in his head telling him what to do Originally Posted by CJ7poor IB.
https://saf.org/?page_id=1460Precisely!
This case is particularly important because of all of the United States Courts of Appeal issuing rulings on the Second Amendment, since Heller, only the Third Circuit, in this matter, has actually held that the Second Amendment does not secure, or even touch, the right to carry a handgun, “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” This interpretation is in clear conflict with the decisions of other circuits and, more importantly, imperils the Second Amendment rights of all citizens. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
you guys are much better off ignoring IB, he's used to it in the real world, and functions much better when he obeys all those little voices in his head telling him what to do Originally Posted by CJ7Continue to watch CBJ7 as he deals with real world issues and facts like an ostrich with its head stuck shoulder deep in night soil.
poor IB. Originally Posted by JCM800How so, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout? Your no talent and very ignorant ass has yet to post anything remotely resembling a substantive, intelligent rebuttal; thus, you continue to be anchored in an ass-crack while your remainder flaps in the wind.
Cite in the Second Amendment where such a restriction exists or can be imposed, Speedy.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.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
https://saf.org/?page_id=1460Unless I am reading this case incorrectly, it is very similar to the case in N.Y. in which a Federal judge ruled that N.Y.'s tough gun control laws were constitutional. If the N.J. law is found to be unconstitutional. all they would have to do is copy the N.Y. law.
This case is particularly important because of all of the United States Courts of Appeal issuing rulings on the Second Amendment, since Heller, only the Third Circuit, in this matter, has actually held that the Second Amendment does not secure, or even touch, the right to carry a handgun, “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” This interpretation is in clear conflict with the decisions of other circuits and, more importantly, imperils the Second Amendment rights of all citizens. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
How so, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout? Your no talent and very ignorant ass has yet to post anything remotely resembling a substantive, intelligent rebuttal; thus, you continue to be anchored in an ass-crack while your remainder flaps in the wind. Originally Posted by I B HankeringAnd where would you be without Wiki?
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.But the Supreme Court hasn't ruled, Speedy, and that's why Wyoming's AG is involved. Plus, you obviously missed JD's thread, because it's these guys who are most likely to bust into your home brandishing weapons, Speedy.
I have read the 2nd Amendment 100s, if not 1000s, of times, and I still don't know what it says or does not say. That is exactly why there is so much controversy over the amendment. However, I know that this is true:
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[
So, to repeat once again because you just don't seem to get it, it does not matter what you think or what I think. It is how the SCOTUS and other courts interpret the 2nd Amendment that matters. I guarantee you that the courts will NEVER give you the right to carry a firearm into my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
And where would you be without Wiki?Wiki was the conspicuous alternative to citing Gordon Hutchinson's The Great New Orleans Gun Grab: Descent into Anarchy which you do not own and did not read, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout. Reading and literacy are skills you obviously avoid like the plague, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout. And you have yet to substantively refute anything in the wiki article, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout. So your no talent and very ignorant ass, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout, continues to be stuck in an ass-crack and flapping in the wind.
How many "substantive, intelligent rebuttals" have they given you?
But the Supreme Court hasn't ruled, Speedy, and that's why Wyoming's AG is involved. Plus, you obviously missed JD's thread, because it's these guys who are most likely to bust into your home brandishing weapons, Speedy.I'm talking about the countless cases that have already been brought through the court system and have limited gun owner's rights. The latest one I know of is the case in which the N.Y. law limiting gun ownership was declared constitutional.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I'm talking about the countless cases that have already been brought through the court system and have limited gun owner's rights. The latest one I know of is the case in which the N.Y. law limiting gun ownership was declared constitutional.You're deflecting, Speedy, your disparaging remark was directed at Wyoming's AG for bringing suit in this matter. BTW, Speedy, Randy Weaver never *imagined* that Federal agents would shoot his wife while she held their baby in her arms.
Second, I'll let people like you worry about people, even the police, busting into homes brandishing weapons. Can it happen? Yes. Probability of it happening -- so slight that it's not even a blip on my radar screen. I'm on my way out the door to go on a 35-40 mile bicycle ride which statistically will do a lot more for improving my life longevity than owning a gun. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
You're deflecting, Speedy, your disparaging remark was directed at Wyoming's AG for bringing suit in this matter. BTW, Speedy, Randy Weaver never *imagined* that Federal agents would shoot his wife while she held their baby in her arms.In the beginning, yes, I started with disparaging remarks about the Wyoming AG. If you'll go back and review both your and my posts since then, like most threads, the discussion has gone in several different directions, such as your question:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
In the beginning, yes, I started with disparaging remarks about the Wyoming AG. If you'll go back and review both your and my posts since then, like most threads, the discussion has gone in several different directions, such as your question:... but the Supreme Court has not ruled; hence, Wyoming's AG is involved seeking an unambiguous Supreme Court ruling.
The right to bear arms doesn't stop at the domicile threshold, do you understand that?
And my response is that several court decisions have already made rulings on that subject and have limited gun owner's rights outside the home. Such as in N.Y.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
... but the Supreme Court has not ruled; hence, Wyoming's AG is involved seeking an unambiguous Supreme Court ruling. Originally Posted by I B HankeringI hope you understand that there is, in my opinion at least, a HUGE difference between having a gun in your home for self-defense and carrying a gun in public. A person with a gun in their home has close to a zero possibility of directly affecting my life. When a person carries a gun outside the home, the possibility of that affecting my life increases dramatically. That is why I don't think there should be absolute freedom to carry a gun in public. I certainly support the CHL laws in Texas. A person has to be 21 and has to attend a class where hopefully the basics of operating a handgun and the laws surrounding the use of a handgun are explained. I want to be sure that the person legally carrying the handgun has a basic skill in its use and knows when he/she should or should not use it. I am hoping that the SCOTUS, should they hear the case, understands this major difference.
I hope you understand that there is, in my opinion at least, a HUGE difference between having a gun in your home for self-defense and carrying a gun in public. A person with a gun in their home has close to a zero possibility of directly affecting my life. When a person carries a gun outside the home, the possibility of that affecting my life increases dramatically. That is why I don't think there should be absolute freedom to carry a gun in public. I certainly support the CHL laws in Texas. A person has to be 21 and has to attend a class where hopefully the basics of operating a handgun and the laws surrounding the use of a handgun are explained. I want to be sure that the person legally carrying the handgun has a basic skill in its use and knows when he/she should or should not use it. I am hoping that the SCOTUS, should they hear the case, understands this major difference. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXSo you understand this part? "they will never stop" RIGHT?
