There Have Been 5 Major Shootings in the U.S. in the Past Week Alone

Again, from the decision.

 

Bobby what is so great about you?

Please be specific.

 

He has mentioned before on the boards that he is capable of autofellatio. I think that makes one pretty great.

 

Indeed no right is absolute. But that's not at issue here. The issue is that rights creation and recognition - which you have only been able to date back to 2008, because other courts rejected this argument whenever it was made.


The other issue, Bobby the great, is your lack of greatness. This issue has been logged and noted.

 

Honestly, the only issue here is that you don't seem to know what the SC does when it reviews a case. You seem to think that they "create" laws when all they do is interpret them. What's funny about all of this is that you pointed out the specific case that shows you the SC acknowledging that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual right yet for some reason you fail to understand what that means. They merely explained what the amendment says, they didn't create anything new. The right was created December 15, 1791.

 

Not according to the courts that reviewed the issue between 1791 and 2008 and largely rejected that contention.

Not even according to you 2 hours ago, when you pretended like it was "assumed" prior to admitting that that was incorrect.

Bobby did you have a typo in the past, and actually mean to register as BOBBY THE GRATE?

Cause you sure are full of holes.

 

Anyway it's pointless for me to continue with you since for whatever reason you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the SC does and what their rulings mean. If you want to believe that they created the 2nd amendment in 2008, more power to ya. I can't promise I won't laugh at you for it, but I won't try to stop you anymore.

 

Sucking his thumb doesn't count.

 

Heck, he once(?) had to kill a drifter just to get an erection.

 

He's being ironic.

 

Well I didn't HAVE to but it still gave me an erection....uh oh, I've said to much

 

I hate that I can't fix typos.

 

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The plain meaning of the text of the Amendment is pretty self explanatory.

 

Yes, plain meaning is self-explanatory.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Yeah, pretty self-explanatory...or rather it was for the bulk of American history. Unfortunately dispute this, it still had to be spelled out that

It just shows the sad state of education in this country that something that obvious should have to be spelled out....even worse is that some people don't get it even after it's been spelled out for them several times.

 

Ugh, again with the typos.

 

You're the ones talking about plain language. Everyone who can read English can see where it's clearly indicating well regulated militias.

Is that written in the Constitution somewhere that I can't find it? If you're going to define militia as able bodied men 18-35 years of age which would be an acceptable definition for combat then that seems to disqualify a lot of currently armed people in violation of your own definition of militia. How convenient. So make up your mind already because well regulated militia doesn't mean anyone with a pulse who's seen Rambo. Yes, the sad state of education where someone doesn't follow their own definitions.

 

Yes, that's called a prefatory clause, I wonder what the supreme court had to say about it....oh wait, I know, it said

Again, something that was self-explanatory for most of American history, yet for whatever reason had to be spelled out.

It's not my definition, and the definition is irrelevant because of the equal protection clause. What matters is that it was conveying an individual right because individuals would comprise the militia. Honestly this shouldn't be hard to understand, yet you still seem to be struggling with it.

 

Same question to you then - name a court that recognized the affirmative individual right to bear arms prior to 2008.

Bobby the grate failed to do so, then attempted to divert with a tangent.

Not sure why you really want to embarrass yourself over this. Prior to Heller, the second amendment was never read that way. In Heller, the plaintiffs and the DOj specifically made the argument that it should be in order to get it recognized. You can find the very footnote in the DOJs brief saying exactly this if you want.

Why you want to look foolish making the argument that Heller did NOT greatly expand 2nd Amendment rights - moronic on its face- is beyond. It did, for better or worse, and everybody knows this.

 

There have also been legitimate self defense shootings, but they don't fit your agenda, so they get ignored.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...-township-homeowner-shoots-intruder/10314807/

http://www.pharostribune.com/local/x1927792609/Shooting-death-ruled-justified-homicide