federal judges rule against the constitution, big shock it's NJ

evince said:
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ctions-could-be-constitutional/1#.UgFz4inn85s


the scotus is not with you





As for the constitutionality of new legislation, Scalia noted that the United States had weapons laws at the time the Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

He cited one law that banned "a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something."

Scalia also said:


"Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided."
Click to expand...
Can you get the ACTUAL opinion written by Scalia? Actually don't bother, I've read it for more than you've ever read anything. In short the snippet that you provide does not invalidate my statement.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
hey howey, i think this was written for you and zappa

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

The anti-gun male

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.
Click to expand...

LOL One of the funniest sexual fantasies i've ever read. She reminds me of the girl in the alley.

 
evince said:
reasonable
Click to expand...
no, you are anything but reasonable.

evince said:
Unlike most of what scalia says he got this one correct.
Click to expand...
that you agree with limits on freedom tells me you beg for slavery.


evince said:
why cant you?
Click to expand...
because Scalia is not correct, he's a statist like you and all other libs. in a country that was created so that we the people were the ultimate power, you gave it away because you're a coward.
 
For some reason on my iPad I can't post a video directly to the board, just the link. So I am reposting, everyone should watch this - Michelle Pfeiffer rules as Catwoman! I love her in this role so much.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top