Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sigh.Nobody needs to google, what you've presented is exactly what did *not* happen, in real life.Not how it works.Well, yea. Except, as it stands, it's not a violation of the law since, you know, it's not been constitutionally challenged and won, in court so
The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rghts are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.
As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest
So, unless you can show that interest, there's no way to argue the limits you support pass muster.
Once Jillan googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.
So, have fun taking it to the Supreme.
Sigh.Nobody needs to google, what you've presented is exactly what did *not* happen, in real life.Not how it works.
The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rghts are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.
As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest
So, unless you can show that interest, there's no way to argue the limits you support pass muster.
Once Jillan googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.
So, have fun taking it to the Supreme.
"Common sense" says you cannot violate the Constitution, regardless how good you think an idea that does so may be. At some point, given the 2 most recent decisions from the court, someone will argue exactly what I have argued here, and will win, based on that argument.
Yep I believe in the current level of gun control, it works pretty well.
What do you mean by "current level of gun control"?
It varies state to state, and sometimes city to city.
In IL, where I live, for instance, no one is free to carry a concealed weapon on them (they are thinking of changing this, thank goodness). In places like CA, some people can get permits to do it, but you have to be friendly with the local sheriff or whatever. In many states, they have "shall issue" licenses where, as long as you meet a certain criterion, you can get a carry-conceal license.
That's only the carry-conceal side of things though. There are all sorts of different laws about where you can keep a gun and how many bullets can be held in it and so on and so forth and these laws apply to all different jurisdictions-- some of them state, some of them county, some of them city-- so I don't know how you can say that you're in favor of the "current level" of gun control.
To my mind, either we have gun control, or we don't.
Conversely, they allow hot headed exes to johnny on the spot in the heat of the moment buy pull shoot.
I think that people who have a philosophy of having a gun for protection don't generally wait until it's too late to have one and if they do, then they have their own philosophy to blame.
Hot headed Johnny's already have the weapons so no, that is not an issue. Waiting periods only harm the undefended. There is tons of evidence that shows the harm they do. I can count on my fingers the number of times someone has bought a weapon and immediatly used it. There are FAR more cases of the other however.
I still put the responsibility not on the Law, but on those who view guns as adequate protection, but waiting around for a rainy day to get one. Life is a one-timer. Procrastinating your protection?> Asinine.
Hot headed Johnny's already have the weapons so no, that is not an issue. Waiting periods only harm the undefended. There is tons of evidence that shows the harm they do. I can count on my fingers the number of times someone has bought a weapon and immediatly used it. There are FAR more cases of the other however.
I still put the responsibility not on the Law, but on those who view guns as adequate protection, but waiting around for a rainy day to get one. Life is a one-timer. Procrastinating your protection?> Asinine.
Most women rely on their partners/husbands for protection. When the former protector becomes the villain those women need help. You would deny it to them based on what,
procrastination?
Get real.
I still put the responsibility not on the Law, but on those who view guns as adequate protection, but waiting around for a rainy day to get one. Life is a one-timer. Procrastinating your protection?> Asinine.
Most women rely on their partners/husbands for protection. When the former protector becomes the villain those women need help. You would deny it to them based on what,
procrastination?
Get real.
Get real that some woman about to be attacked is going be able to voluntarily leave the crib, and go pick up a pistol, coming home, as opposed to, you know, going to the Police.
), the atackers in the vast majority of the cases have been in contact with police, usually multiple times, and in the vast majority of the time there is a Restraining Order against the hubby. But hey don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your attitued.
Not how it works.Yes - wanton violations of the law of the land are just fine - so long as it is 'common sense' to do so.
Well, yea. Except, as it stands, it's not a violation of the law since, you know, it's not been constitutionally challenged and won, in court so
The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rghts are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.
As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest
So, unless you can show that interest, there's no way to argue the limits you support pass muster.
Once Jillan googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.
Seriously.
If you're out there, please tell us why!
Yes... let us suburdinate everyone's right to what -you- think is 'common sense'.Sigh.Nobody needs to google, what you've presented is exactly what did *not* happen, in real life.
So, have fun taking it to the Supreme.
"Common sense" says you cannot violate the Constitution, regardless how good you think an idea that does so may be. At some point, given the 2 most recent decisions from the court, someone will argue exactly what I have argued here, and will win, based on that argument.
And I hope they don't win, because I think it would be moronic to have no background checks.
Oh good - Jillian is back to illustrate the fact that this year she might just barely manage to pass into some Mississippian middle school.Even Heller said it only struck down a total ban and scalia, the rightiest of rightwingnuts on the bench said that did not discount the possibility of controls.
The fact that I can carry on an intelligent conversation regarding same, as opposed to your soundbites, unsupportable assertions, strawmen, red herrings and outright lies say pretty much everything that needs to be said on this issue.Who told you that you know anything on this subject?
You do if you want to have some idea as to what I've said and have any hope of creating an effective response.i don't have to google anything on this subject
Not that you, personally, have any idea if this is true or not, seeing as you cannot pass the entry requirements to get into college.but maybe if you actually take a con law course you'll know something
If you ever get there, you'll know.what's it like having only a 6th grade education?
Wow... even with the Google results in front of you, you --still-- get it wrong.a fundamental right can be subject to government control. the test is whether there is a substantial governmental interest in the regulation. the standard of review is called strict scrutiny.
When you Google "strict scrutiny" you'll find what I posted, highlighted above in blue.Quote: M14
The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rights are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.
As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest
Thank you for -absolutely - proving me right, both in terms of the quote, above, and that you lie about your education/credentials.Quote: M14
Once Jillan Googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.
No, I believe the Background Checks and Waiting Periods in place are common sense, and so I'm not against them, end of story.
I don't arrive at my opinions based on what I think the Constitution says. I arrive at them based on my own reasoning and research abilities.
I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.
Conversely, they allow hot headed exes to johnny on the spot in the heat of the moment buy pull shoot.
I think that people who have a philosophy of having a gun for protection don't generally wait until it's too late to have one and if they do, then they have their own philosophy to blame.
Why aren't you freedom loving, super-patriotic, haters-of-government calling for the disarmament of government officials?
I thought you guys believe that market forces can solve all this nation's woes.
Why not let the invisible hand of the market regulate guns?
Thank you for -absolutely - proving me right, both in terms of the quote, above, and that you lie about your education/credentials.
Why aren't you freedom loving, super-patriotic, haters-of-government calling for the disarmament of government officials?
I thought you guys believe that market forces can solve all this nation's woes.
Why not let the invisible hand of the market regulate guns?
More retarded bullshit from the Board idiot. I do not support Libertarians and strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment. IF society and the Government collapse as has happened all over the middle east recently you are gonna wish you had a firearm.
Is there anyone who still believes in gun control?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously.
If you're out there, please tell us why!
because i've had to deal with it first hand, and subsequently don't believe a militarized populace is condusive to a safe populace....
Says the primary-school droput, incapable of refuting anytthing I posted.poor loser.Thank you for -absolutely - proving me right, both in terms of the quote, above, and that you lie about your education/credentials.
We've already determined that you lie abour your education and credential for that very reason - you could at least TRY to be original here.ah well... whatever makes you feel better about your own pathetic life.
