Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
He said militia membership had nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arm. Your "Crips are militia" theory of gun rights is now both absurd and meaningless.
Poor you.
Back to the Crips again. I’m sorry, but you seem to be stuck on stupid.
I admit enjoying your "Crips" stupidity.
The 2nd Amendment applies to and restricts the federal government.
Read a book.
Just weird. I think reading Scalia's ruling has completely unhinged what was left of your mind...
Poor you...
Which has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
Nice foot shot!
Backwards. But what else is new?
Held: 1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
Does the federal government have individual rights? Do Crips in Chicago?
Do you have multiple individual voices in your head?
The 2nd Amendment restricts the federal government. It did not create the right protected.
Read a book.
But none of that answers the question. I don’t care about where the right came from, nor who it restricts. I just want to know if you think it applies to Crips in Chicago, or is the 2a like § 311, having some secret exemption for Crips?
It doesn't come from the Crips imaginary militia membership, your inane claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
Try to take your defeat like a man.
1. You made the claim twice that militia membership was relevant to gun rights, I made it zero times, so it’s your cross to bear, not mine.
2. Your favorite question, in case you’ve forgotten, is now irrelevant, and we’ve moved on to a new one:
Do Crips have 2nd amendment rights, or not? Why are you afraid to just answer yes or no?
CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES,
Begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday, the
Fourth of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.
The Conventions of a Number of the States having at the Time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as extending the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,
RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes as Part of the said Constitution, viz.
ARTICLES in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Yer' still stupid after all of these years Roscoe. You'd think you would at least remember this one. I've used it how many times in exactly this conversation? The BoR "applied" as part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" as soon as it was passed by Congress and ratified by the States.
You are acting like a child willfully denying reality.
There comes a time in every conversation when poking the troll with a stick naturally morphs into wanting to beat him with a baseball bat.
I think we’ve finally encountered the previously only theoretical “anti-truth” which is analogous to anti-matter.
If one of his anti-truth arguments comes into contact with the truth, there will be a massive explosion of logic and nothing in the world will make sense any more.
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.