Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Can your read and comprehend even the simplest of statements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT????
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7
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
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.
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.
Precisely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7
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
Continue to watch CBJ7 as he deals with real world issues and facts like an ostrich with its head stuck shoulder deep in night soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCM800
poor IB.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unless 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.
Heller was quite different in that the over-turned law basically allowed no one to own a handgun. In N.Y. and N.J. private citizens can own handguns but the laws are very restrictive as to who can do so.
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.
And where would you be without Wiki?
How many "substantive, intelligent rebuttals" have they given you?
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCM800
And where would you be without Wiki?
How many "substantive, intelligent rebuttals" have they given you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW, Odumbo's AG -- Eric Holder -- was directly responsible for this photo op:
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:
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.
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:
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.
... but the Supreme Court has not ruled; hence, Wyoming's AG is involved seeking an unambiguous Supreme Court ruling.
... but the Supreme Court has not ruled; hence, Wyoming's AG is involved seeking an unambiguous Supreme Court ruling.
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.
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.
So you understand this part? "they will never stop" RIGHT?
