A little education on so called "assault weapons"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chinaman attacked scores of kids with a knife. Number of dead: ZERO. Of note: The perp was chased off by citizens. Who were armed with BROOMS.

Good point, but was the Chinese guy a *ninja*? I think not. Here in the USA we have a different style of knifing.

Number of dead maybe zero but those kids were severely disfigured, is disfigurement okay with you?

Classic example of the red herring fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, no. That's not what it (2A) says at all. It refers to a "well regulated militia", not a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who likes to act out a John Wayne fantasy.

Quote Of The Day.

"um, no" - back at you both.

Despite your attempt to define it to your liking, the 2nd Amendment actually says what a majority of the Supreme Court has determined it says (twice). I'm agast at the apparent ignorance on this point: please enter the following cite in Westlaw/Lexis (or just google it :roll:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, no. That's not what it (2A) says at all. It refers to a "well regulated militia", not a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who likes to act out a John Wayne fantasy.

Quote Of The Day.

"um, no" - back at you both.

Despite your attempt to define it to your liking, the 2nd Amendment actually says what a majority of the Supreme Court has determined it says (twice). I'm agast at the apparent ignorance on this point: please enter the following cite in Westlaw/Lexis (or just google it :roll:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010)

Since you feel that 5-4 Supreme Ct decisions mean that the language is not even ambiguous, you must believe that Roe v Wade (7-2) means the right to an abortion is clearly written in the Constitution. So interesting as even though I am pro-choice, I thought the Court was really stretching in that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, no. That's not what it (2A) says at all. It refers to a "well regulated militia", not a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who likes to act out a John Wayne fantasy.

Quote Of The Day.

"um, no" - back at you both.

Despite your attempt to define it to your liking, the 2nd Amendment actually says what a majority of the Supreme Court has determined it says (twice). I'm agast at the apparent ignorance on this point: please enter the following cite in Westlaw/Lexis (or just google it :roll:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010)

Since you feel that 5-4 Supreme Ct decisions mean that the language is not even ambiguous, you must believe that Roe v Wade (7-2) means the right to an abortion is clearly written in the Constitution. So interesting as even though I am pro-choice, I thought the Court was really stretching in that case.

Funny you should ask; I am pro choice. Many libertarians are as well. And I am pro 2nd Amendment.

It is simple, really: keep your big government laws OUT of my medical privacy, out of medical clinics, and off my constitutional right to own and bear arms (yes bear - see the recent 7th Cir. remands in Shepard v. Madigan and Moore v. Madigan). Please note that any and all weapons restrictions currently in place or proposed would NOT apply whatsoever to the police- ONLY to civilians. If these are indeed "weapons of war" then WHAT are they doing in the hands of our police? (and against whom are the police waging war?).

As for the 5-4 McDonald decision, and the 5-4 Heller decision which preceeded it, no, I do not draw the conclusion that the language is ambiguous. Both decisions were far better researched and briefed than Roe. While I support choice for various reasons, I agree with you that the Court in Roe was stretching (unlike the Court's majority opinion in Heller or McDonald).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, no. That's not what it (2A) says at all. It refers to a "well regulated militia", not a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who likes to act out a John Wayne fantasy.

Quote Of The Day.

"um, no" - back at you both.

Despite your attempt to define it to your liking, the 2nd Amendment actually says what a majority of the Supreme Court has determined it says (twice). I'm agast at the apparent ignorance on this point: please enter the following cite in Westlaw/Lexis (or just google it :roll:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010)

Hmm... still looking for the text that justifies "a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who like to act out a John Wayne fantasy". Nope, not finding it in Westlaw/Lexis.