Understanding the 2nd Amendment

I find it more than a little bit amusing that you are stealing bandwidth from the pro-gun ownership Penn Shooting Club by hotlinking to the image hosted on the upenn.edu server.

http://www.dolphin.upenn.edu/shooting/PagePics/2nd-ammendment-1.jpg

The simple act of getting a hotfile account or subscribing to some other hosting service is just too much to ask of you.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you have no respect for such things . . . perfectly in character for you.
 
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials
and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).
 
"As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion . . . To view a particular provision of the Bill of Rights with disfavor inevitably results in a constricted application of it. This is to disrespect the Constitution." -- Ullmann v. United States 350 U.S. 422, (1956)
 
NICS_to_March_2012.jpg.html
 
This thread is strange. All his subsequent posts have been deleted, don't know if it was someone with magic buttons or the OP. Matters little because the content was the same stolen image in the OP, over and over again. So now we are left with a flood of my posts where once a tit for tat existed LOL.

Doesn't change the fact that the premise of the thread is a total fail . . .

The citizen's right to arms is among the "great residuum" of powers not granted to government through the Constitution.

So, the true situation is exactly opposite of what is supposed. The right to arms is not contingent on what the 2nd Amendment says.

The right to arms does not depend upon a particular definition of a word or a particular combination of words in the 2nd Amendment nor any particular interpretation of those words / clauses by a Court . . .

The right to arms of the citizen exists because NO WORDS exist in the Constitution to grant the federal government a shred of power to even form a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.
 
no....legion deletes his posts all the time. he is that stupid. in fact, he will delete his dumb posts even when others copy the post in reply. yes....i know...dumb....but he is our little legion troll. good for laughs
 
Abatis said:
This thread is strange. All his subsequent posts have been deleted, don't know if it was someone with magic buttons or the OP. Matters little because the content was the same stolen image in the OP, over and over again. So now we are left with a flood of my posts where once a tit for tat existed LOL.

Doesn't change the fact that the premise of the thread is a total fail . . .

The citizen's right to arms is among the "great residuum" of powers not granted to government through the Constitution.

So, the true situation is exactly opposite of what is supposed. The right to arms is not contingent on what the 2nd Amendment says.

The right to arms does not depend upon a particular definition of a word or a particular combination of words in the 2nd Amendment nor any particular interpretation of those words / clauses by a Court . . .

The right to arms of the citizen exists because NO WORDS exist in the Constitution to grant the federal government a shred of power to even form a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.
Click to expand...

Legion (the guy you were arguing with) is our resident troll. I highly recommend placing him on ignore. In the several years he's been here, not once has he done anything more than troll.
 
Abatis said:
This thread is strange. All his subsequent posts have been deleted, don't know if it was someone with magic buttons or the OP. Matters little because the content was the same stolen image in the OP, over and over again. So now we are left with a flood of my posts where once a tit for tat existed LOL.

Doesn't change the fact that the premise of the thread is a total fail . . .

The citizen's right to arms is among the "great residuum" of powers not granted to government through the Constitution.

So, the true situation is exactly opposite of what is supposed. The right to arms is not contingent on what the 2nd Amendment says.

The right to arms does not depend upon a particular definition of a word or a particular combination of words in the 2nd Amendment nor any particular interpretation of those words / clauses by a Court . . .

The right to arms of the citizen exists because NO WORDS exist in the Constitution to grant the federal government a shred of power to even form a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.
Click to expand...

He deletes his posts, so that they can't be brought back up and used to show what a fucking retard he is.
He sits on the fence so much, that one of those particular pickets is firmly implanted in his ass.

Wait until you actually try to get Gatorman>Taterman>Spud>Poetess to understand something; because you'll find the true meaning of pearls before swine. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top