Skip to comments.
High court to look at ban on handguns
McClatchy-Tribune ^
| Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM
| MICHAEL DOYLE
Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,400, 1,401-1,420, 1,421-1,440 ... 1,581-1,586 next last
To: Mojave
Let's try again. Was Scalia talking about Miller in that quotation? It's a yes or no kind of question.
And if you insist on dredging up yet another unanswered question, I'll ask you
again: do you see any exemption in TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 for Crips and Bloods?
To: tacticalogic
I didn’t start the exchange.
To: Mojave
Ah. That’s your excuse. Well, I’m ending it.
1,403
posted on
06/28/2008 7:15:56 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: publiusF27
Was Scalia talking about Miller in that quotation?Scalia refuted your position that militia membership was a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms. He noted that Miller was silent on the question.
Do you have targets painted on your feet?
To: tacticalogic
To: Mojave
1,406
posted on
06/28/2008 7:20:29 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Is that a discount brand of liquor?
To: Mojave
That’s clear as mud and takes your usual tactic of asserting the opposite of the truth about me, but it sounds like you’re now admitting that your post 1,363 was completely wrong, and Scalia’s comment posted by me at 1,362 did indeed have something (everything, actually) to do with Miller. Is that correct?
To: publiusF27
That’s clear as mud Only if you have mud in your eye.
Read slowly and try to keep up:
Scalia refuted your position that militia membership was a prerequisite to the right to keep and bear arms. He noted that Miller was silent on the question.
To: publiusF27
This is why we're all supposed to have M-16s. Hey, maybe you can write Scalia and share your crackpot theory with him. I hear he's got a sense of humor.
To: Mojave
I guess you’ve forgotten that before Heller was decided, the idea that militia membership was important to firearms rights was your cherished notion, and you insisted on asking everyone on this thread whether Crips and Bloods were in the militia, twice saying the answer had some relevance to their firearms rights. I was mocking that silliness by noting that the Supreme Court had heard a 2A case (Miller) about non-militia members, and was glad to see that Scalia joined me in mocking gungrabbers like yourself with the same argument.
To: publiusF27
I guess you’ve forgotten that before Heller was decided, the idea that militia membership was important to firearms rights was your cherished notion No cite or link, natch. Sorry, you can't lie your way out of this one.
To: Mojave
Actually, Scalia did address M-16 ownership directly, and I thought what he said was really lame, in an otherwise good opinion.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.
That's my objection exactly. He goes on:
...the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
"Modern developments" such as the (unconstitutional, IMO) ban on post 1986 machine guns, which I hope to see challenged in court soon.
To: Mojave
The cites once again are your posts numbers
1,203 and
1,199, in both of which you stated that militia membership was relevant to the firearms rights of Crips and Bloods.
To: publiusF27
Nope. Only to get you to clarify whether your absurd assertion that Crips and Bloods are militia was a collective of individual assertion of rights
To: Mojave
We’ll let that be a surprise.
1,416
posted on
06/28/2008 8:01:26 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
To: Mojave
LOL! I even linked your posts and you didn't go back to find out that you were not talking to me at all in those posts.
I think that part of the thread really all started with your ally on this issue, robertpaulsen, who used to say things like
this:
"I have said that the second amendment does not protect the RKBA of civilians."
Remember how that used to make you and all the other gungrabbers swoon with pleasure? Wow, I'm glad those days are gone! Just grinning ear to ear! :D
To: publiusF27
you were not talking to me at all in those posts.To your defender. Are you now denying your previous claim that Crips and Bloods are militia?
To: Mojave
You seem to be the one denying that USC
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 applies to Crips and Bloods, so let’s have some proof that applying the law to those groups is a lunatic notion.
Where is the exemption for Crips and Bloods in USC
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,400, 1,401-1,420, 1,421-1,440 ... 1,581-1,586 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson