- Mar 3, 2013
- 83,832
- 45,599
- 2,605
Illegal gun ownership isn't though.
illegal?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Illegal gun ownership isn't though.
It doesn’t.Where does the Second Amendment protect against illegal weapons and parts?
True. Though I get the feeling we wouldn’t necestagree on what should be considered illegal gun ownership.Illegal gun ownership isn't though
you're like 8 turds shoved in a 2 turd balloon.Off topic outburst, mind numbing
here, let me help you... from the article...
As explained in Los Angeles Magazine, the gun industry is not at all happy.
Haha, we can always count on your marble sharp with to make us all pause to wonder if you are 8 or 10 years old.you're like 8 turds shoved in a 2 turd balloon.
let me know when you figure it out.Haha, we can always count on your marble sharp with to make us all pause to wonder if you are 8 or 10 years old.
Kinda hard to do, with you firmly attached to my ankles, my little attack poodle.let me know when you figure it out.
just keep a 10 turd distance.
Kinda hard to do, with you firmly attached to my ankles, my little attack poodle.
But I have seen you complaining about the economy a lot, so I assume you are poor as shit (your education level would seem to align with that).
Have you considered moving to California to cash in on this law?
just so you know, i don't bother reading your bullshit.
What “right to privacy”? Show me where it’s mentioned in the constitution. It’s a “right” invented by the Berger court out of thin air. Even RBG admitted Roe was a bad decision.Conservatives have only themselves to blame with their bad-faith efforts to circumvent the right to privacy.
Incorrect.LOL. Fucking love it. Now the court has to either uphold both, or disregard both.
....he says, as more and more and more states enact constitutional carry.And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.
Ok then. I suppose that it’s just fine to dox cops, judges, and politicians. It’s ok for men to use the ladies restroom. It’s ok for cops to search your belongings. No right to privacy.There is no right to privacy. The Burger court invented it out of whole cloth as cover for a political decision.
There wasn’t a federal issue about abortion until suddenly there was. A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected. Then precedent protecting your sacred cows might suddenly be gone too.Incorrect.
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution
The right to an abortion is not. No federal issue.
You don't understand why the argument in Dobbs does not apply to the jurisprudence surrounding the 2nd -- and it shows.A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected.
Ok then. I suppose that it’s just fine to dox cops, judges, and politicians. It’s ok for men to use the ladies restroom. It’s ok for cops to search your belongings. No right to privacy.
There wasn’t a federal issue about abortion until suddenly there was. A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected. Then precedent protecting your sacred cows might suddenly be gone too.
So, does a pregnant woman have any rights to privacy then?It's ok for cops to search your belongings because of no right to privacy!?! Maybe you should be read the 4th Amendment and get back with us.
Liberals do this every day...That court would have to totally overlook where it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They and you already ignore the well regulated militia part. What if they decided to take that into account?That court would have to totally overlook where it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."