Armed homeowner who defended family in driveway shoot-out says he's been stripped of

domer76 said:
Post that claimed fuckup, bitch.

I’ll wait.
Click to expand...

Start here;

Armed homeowner who defended family in driveway shoot-out says he's been stripped of - Page 7 (justplainpolitics.com)

Then it only declines.

You really are too stupid to grasp what a complete fool you've made of yourself, aren't you?

iu
 
domer76 said:
Nope, not really. All Heller said was that you have a personal right to possess a weapon in the home for personal defense. That’s about it. It was silent about concealed carry and other issues you stupid fucks are ignorant about.

Scalia, writing for the majority, also said that other restrictions are permissible, including sale, manufacture and transport. That the 2nd is not absolute. He said Heller does not give you permission to possess any gun, anywhere, or anytime.

So, you stupid fucks think Heller was some monumental ball breaker for gun restrictions. It wasn’t. But, whatever floats your ignorant ass, I guess.
Click to expand...

Remember what I said about you being a fuckup?

This is another example. You have not a hint of a clue what Heller is about. Some anti-liberty hate Blog told you that Heller limits individual rights to inside the home.

But of course, it says nothing of the sort.

{b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
}

So we see that "Arms" are man carriable - you will still vomit out idiocy about ICBMS, because you are a leftist drone and incapable of thought. But it will be "pre refuted" when you toss out that talking point.

{DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)}

Hence, your idiotic lie about "in the home" is dismissed.

Heller CONFIRMS the obvious language of the Constitution that we have a RIGHT to carry arms upon our person.

Once again you prove you have never read Heller and haven't a fucking clue what it is about - depending on anti-liberty hate blogs to fill you with fallacious talking points.
 
Trumpet said:
Whose moral compass are you referring to?????
Click to expand...

yours is broken

any decent person would see this story and be upset that the home owner was not allowed to protect himself

but that is not your take away here. your compass is broke. you think the ire needs to be directed elsewhere.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Remember what I said about you being a fuckup?

This is another example. You have not a hint of a clue what Heller is about. Some anti-liberty hate Blog told you that Heller limits individual rights to inside the home.

But of course, it says nothing of the sort.

{b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
}

So we see that "Arms" are man carriable - you will still vomit out idiocy about ICBMS, because you are a leftist drone and incapable of thought. But it will be "pre refuted" when you toss out that talking point.

{DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)}

Hence, your idiotic lie about "in the home" is dismissed.

Heller CONFIRMS the obvious language of the Constitution that we have a RIGHT to carry arms upon our person.

Once again you prove you have never read Heller and haven't a fucking clue what it is about - depending on anti-liberty hate blogs to fill you with fallacious talking points.
Click to expand...


The pointless silly ass tripe that you post sure demonstrates that you are seriously fucked-up.
 
Concealed carry is definitely not a constitutional right but this story is just silly. Taking away someone's ability to carry because they had to actually use their gun in a life-or-death situation is stupid and just legitimizes some of the gun advocacy fears out there.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Remember what I said about you being a fuckup?

This is another example. You have not a hint of a clue what Heller is about. Some anti-liberty hate Blog told you that Heller limits individual rights to inside the home.

But of course, it says nothing of the sort.

{b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
}

So we see that "Arms" are man carriable - you will still vomit out idiocy about ICBMS, because you are a leftist drone and incapable of thought. But it will be "pre refuted" when you toss out that talking point.

{DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)}

Hence, your idiotic lie about "in the home" is dismissed.

Heller CONFIRMS the obvious language of the Constitution that we have a RIGHT to carry arms upon our person.

Once again you prove you have never read Heller and haven't a fucking clue what it is about - depending on anti-liberty hate blogs to fill you with fallacious talking points.
Click to expand...


First, I never have said anything about ICBM, you illiterate fucking clown. You pulled that out of your ignorant ass, as usual.

Quote from Heller, idiot:

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.*54–56.

Scalia in his majority opinion:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Checkmate, cunt.
 
Jade Dragon said:
Concealed carry is definitely not a constitutional right but this story is just silly. Taking away someone's ability to carry because they had to actually use their gun in a life-or-death situation is stupid and just legitimizes some of the gun advocacy fears out there.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling there’s more to it than just that.
 
Trumpet said:
He's quite the piece of work.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Mostly he's a typical cowardly bully. Regardless of whether he's in Australia or California there's only so many times oversized morons can smack their wife around before they end up going away for a long time. The Internet is a safe outlet for pussified idiots like him. There's very few lines and he can't be arrested for being an abusive fucking moron.
 
domer76 said:
Do a little fucking homework. It’s not all that difficult.
Click to expand...

I did. You're only one step above Underscore, the Aussie wife-beater, in terms of being calm, cool and collected when having a rational conversation about gun violence in America.
Like him, you only came here to vent. Fine. Your choice. Good luck with that. :thup:
 
Doc Dutch said:
I did. You're only one step above Underscore, the Aussie wife-beater, in terms of being calm, cool and collected when having a rational conversation about gun violence in America.
Like him, you only came here to vent. Fine. Your choice. Good luck with that. :thup:
Click to expand...

Try this, pally boy.

Go back and reread my post #138.

Find something, ANYTHING, that is not factually correct and we can discuss it. Otherwise, you really have offered nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top