So its okay for Congress to pass a law respecting the establishment of religen, yet they cant regulate the ownership of AK-47's?
Its assholes like you two who belive that "shall not be infringed" is absolute, yet "shall make no law.." is flexable.
And calling me a natzi is cool...?
Law schools are churning out idiots if judges can't understand the difference between 'Shall be infringed' and 'shall not be infringed'. It's not confusing. It's not vague. It's not outdated, it's just not the totalitarianism elitists love so much.
Hypocrate!
so anyone should be allowed to own a nuclear ICBM?
Pointing out fascism is not fascism.
can you carry one in to combat with you?
Complaining about ad hominum attacks is a hypocrate when you are dishing out the same!
HEY!! it's not ad hominen if it's the truth, so suck it, statist.
Why should that matter? The constitution does not mention carrying arms into battle!
What flavor?You want some?
Like a suitcase nuke.'arms' have ALWAYS been referred to as items that can be carried by a soldier.
'arms' have ALWAYS been referred to as items that can be carried by a soldier.
Like a suitcase nuke.
can you carry one in to combat with you?