That is hilarious, especially coming from you. Everything that you have posted lacks depth, weight, and substance. You have absolutely no sound basis on which to establish your moronic spewings. It's nothing more than that which one finds with an argumentative spoiled rotten brat child. (Tuesday | post #315)
Another Post-Heller Second Amendment Decision:
BUMP. The commentary below the body of the article is getting quite interesting.... (Tuesday | post #2)
Federal judge upholds guns-at-work law
It ain't over until the fat lady sings, bud. It may still work out. Hope the best for you. Doing alright here, just trying to stay cool in this damn heat.... (Tuesday | post #661)
CORRECT: "Constitution al Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." - Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1963) "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions. " - State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921) "It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions. " - Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491, (1966) "The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control and suppress its enjoyment. . . . A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution. . . . Thus it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce. . . . This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the State. The privilege in question exists apart from State authority. It is guaranteed the People by the federal constitution. " - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). (Tuesday | post #102)
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed". Please explain how THAT is "up to interpretation "? (Tuesday | post #101)
Another Post-Heller Second Amendment Decision:
U.S. v. Robinson (E.D. Wis. July 23) (Adelman, J.): [D]efendant fails to show that Heller renders his prosecution [for being a felon in possession of a firearm] constitutionally infirm.... First, defendant fails to demonstrate that Heller applies to felons. The Court specifically stated in that case: There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Defendant claims that this is dicta, but I cannot so quickly dismiss this explicit limitation on the Court’s holding. Further, defendant cites no authority in support of his claim that the Second Amendment right extends to felons. To my knowledge, no court has, even under an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, found 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) constitutionally suspect. E.g., United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, but nevertheless upholding § 922(g)(8)); [also citing some post-Heller district court and unpublished circuit court cases]. Finally, the Seventh Circuit regularly rejected such challenges pre-Heller, see, e.g., United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that even advocates of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment excluded felons), and nothing in Heller persuades me that the court of appeals is likely to change course now. Second, defendant can find little support in Heller given the circumstances of his case. Heller’s actual holding is: that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.... http://volokh.com/ posts/1217946882.s html (Tuesday | post #1)
And you must be a communist-socialist subversion agent. (Tuesday | post #22365)
Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom) #1 South Africa: 1.19538 per 1,000 people #2 Seychelles: 0.788294 per 1,000 people #3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people #4 Montserrat: 0.749384 per 1,000 people #5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people #6 Jamaica: 0.476608 per 1,000 people #7 Zimbabwe: 0.457775 per 1,000 people #8 Dominica: 0.34768 per 1,000 people #9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people http://www.nationm aster.com/graph/cr i_rap_percap-crime -rapes-per-capita (Tuesday | post #22357)
Olympics