Heller Struck Down

[Shogun]

um...your fly is open.

next time you jowp (jerk-off-while-posting) remember to buckle up afterwards.

uh, I was talking to the girl, dude. I guess it's clear why you'd argue this issue regardless of my curbstomping evidence.

 

[Ravi]

mani clones.. you know.. people who dive into a thread just to come to your rescue rather than provide anything even cose to support for your position.

mani clones.


read the 10th amendment, Ravi. now ask yourself why the Fed has never come down on Utah despite Loving. I can't make you drink, Ravi.

That doesn't even make sense. You're basically saying because I said so.

 

[Shogun]

you're delusional too?

do you know what a tboat is?

yea dude.. it's delusional to undermine your big bad talking point, isnt it?


Dude.. no, I will not tbag (or, in my case Potato Sack) you. take your man package to someone else, yo.

 

[Annie]

What are you talking about? the Loving case? He's totally wrong.

Tell me, Kathianne, do you think McCain will be whining about judicial review of legislation today? Or is it only judicial activism when the other side of the bench strikes down legislation?

BTW, there's no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. For the bench to even review the legislative act of the D.C. legislature, they had to "interpret" the constitution vis a vis Marbury v. Madison, since judicial review doesn't exist in the four corners of the document.

Jillian, I suggest you read the whole and the comments that go with it, regarding those that filed Amicus curiae briefs. That is all. I'm not delving into Loving.

 

[Shogun]

That doesn't even make sense. You're basically saying because I said so.

not at all. I've posted my evidence. Im not going to waste my time forcefeeding you while you remain obstinately ignorant to the facts of the matter.

 

[Ravi]

Okay.

 

[manifold]

oh well THATS new.. Mani running to the aid of a wickedly insufficient Ravi.

WOW.

Next thing you know you'll both be pos repping each other 30 times.





Feel free to post your own Evidence, Mani.. Or, post one of those profound polls or something equally indicative.

Atlas already posted the evidence multiple times. The fact that you've yet to acknowledge it has all but destroyed your credibility as the USMB evidence hawk. The idea that delving deeper into the decision somehow invalidates the clearly stated, in plain English, statement that marriage is a civil right is as laughable as the notion that the militia comment in the 2nd Amendment invalidates an individual's right to bear arms.

You're never more contemptable and despicable as when you're proven wrong and are unable to accept it.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Because you so very much understand the rationale for the decision and have read the court's opinion, right?

Yep, each individual has the right to bear arms, so all of you whiny liberals can kiss my gun loving ass.

 

[Swamp Fox]

You're probably right about the reasoning. My only point was that he hasn't READ the decision,yet he's applauding.

You know that it's only judicial activism if the decision went 5 to 4 the OTHER way. lol...

I am interested in reading it, though.

It's pretty simple

The second amendment says that because "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." The court ruled today that this does not limit gun ownership to service in a militia.

As for the 5-4 vote, that's easy to explain as well. All of the gun hating libs voted against, all of the constitutionalists voted for it.

 

[Shogun]

Atlas already posted the evidence multiple times. The fact that you've yet to acknowledge it has all but destroyed your credibility as the USMB evidence hawk. The idea that delving deeper into the decision somehow invalidates the clearly stated, in plain English, statement that marriage is a civil right is as laughable as the notion that the militia comment in the 2nd Amendment invalidates an individual's right to bear arms.

You're never more contemptable and despicable as when you're proven wrong and are unable to accept it.

no, he really didn't. what he posted amounts to clipping and pasting select words from an entire paragraph in order to fit it around his opinion. I suggest you take a gander at the entire Loving verdict and see if you can seperate the 14th amendment out of the specific ruling based on RACISM.


what is laughable is your goofy fucking brain forgetting that Utah has been doing this same thing to polygamists for years despite Loving. I don't expect you to take the pom poms out of your hands long enough to comprehend why this is relevant.


I have yet to be proven wrong, mani. Adding your worthless input without nary the slightest evidence to offer pretty much sums up my oint about Mani clones in this thread. 50 more of your empty posts won't make the tenth, DOMA, the FULL Loving verdict, and utah precedence any less of a fact.

 

[Shogun]

It's pretty simple

The second amendment says that because "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." The court ruled today that this does not limit gun ownership to service in a militia.

As for the 5-4 vote, that's easy to explain as well. All of the gun hating libs voted against, all of the constitutionalists voted for it.

Hey, remind her that 5-4 was the split with RvW was decided too. THAT should fend her off for a while.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Hey, remind her that 5-4 was the split with RvW was decided too. THAT should fend her off for a while.

She'll come up with something right out of the liberal playbook that will make that just and right while still casting doubt on today's decision.

 

[manifold]

What's the point in post evidence Soggy? It's obvious that facts and evidence are no match for your willful ignorance, fortified with layers upon layers of insecurity coddling arrogance.

But still, you do crack me up...so keep up the good work! I honestly don't give a rat's ass if you ever learn anything here.

 

[Shogun]

If you can manage posting something that is not clearly picking and choosing which part of the Loving verdict you think applies then go for it.

SHOCK me, Mani and break your cycle. Don't crai if I can decipher a verdict despite your half-witted focus on the first ten words..


Utah, sucker. have fun taking this "marriage is a civil right" bullshit to Warren Jeffs.

 

[Ninja]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ill say it again. Today was a great day for this country!!!!!!!!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What part of the 2nd did the other 4 NOT understand?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Money Quote from an anti gun justice. Never mind he has an armed guard protecting his sorry ass.


Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

 

[Annie]

Something Jillian may wish to read and comment upon:

Armed and Dangerous

There is much more here, but thought she and others might find the following and links at site interesting:

Civil Disobedience
June 26th, 2008

This morning I read the entire majority opinion from the Supreme Court striking down the D.C. gun ban.

Then I walked over to the Malvern Police station and asked for a few minutes with the Chief. The local cops know who I am; they haven’t forgotten that I installed some of the computers they use, and my wife is the Vice-President of Malvern’s borough council. Yeah, I know, politician married to an anarchist - it’s a running joke at my house.

Pleasantries completed, I explained to Chief McCann my history as a freedom activist. Notably, my role in helping defeat the Communication Decency Act back in 1996.

I told him that I had been intending to speak with him for several weeks, to inform him that I intend to begin exercising my right to open carry of a firearm (quite legal in Pennsylvania and in most other states as well). I explained that I thought it best he and the local police knew of this in advance in order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. See opencarry.org for background on this fast-growing form of civil-rights activism.

I also told him that, in the wake of the Heller ruling, I intend at some future point to deliberately violate the Pennsylvania state law forbidding concealed carry without a state-issued permit. The Heller ruling does not enumerate those among permissible restrictions, and I would be happy to be PA’s test case on this point. As a citizen of the United States (I explained) I believe I have not only the right but the affirmative duty to challenge unjust and unconstitutional laws; and that since the founders of the U.S. pledged their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to sign the Declaration of Independence, merely risking imprisonment to challenge this law seems to me no more than my duty.

I was not entirely sure what Chief McCann’s response would be. In the event, it was to smile and shake my hand. This cop may arrest me for breaking PA’s gun laws someday, but at least he will do so knowing that civilian firearms are a solution rather than a problem and that those laws are ineffective and unjust — and looking forward to their annulment

Whatever comes of this, I will blog it here.

 

[Swamp Fox]

What part of the 2nd did the other 4 NOT understand?

Seems like the whole thing.........