mnealtx 0 #151 March 1, 2009 When you come up with an actual argument, let me know, ok?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #152 March 1, 2009 Quote When you come up with an actual argument, let me know, ok? I didn't bring up the "scariness" factor, kbordson did, followed by dreweckhart, followed by aggiedave. Why don't you take it up with them? I don't need much of an argument since you guys can't even agree on what your argument is. Where's rushmc when you really need him? He could bring some much needed clarity of thought and intellectual rigor to your side.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #153 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteSome people have obviously never read, or don't respect, the Constitution. You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Some of them. It's disheartening that so many of them, and you, choose the path of the sheeple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #154 March 1, 2009 Quote You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Quote Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #155 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSome people have obviously never read, or don't respect, the Constitution. You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Some of them. It's disheartening that so many of them, and you, choose the path of the sheeple. It must frost you that they, and not you or I, decide what the Constitution means. Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #156 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuote You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Quote Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK" "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #157 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Quote Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #158 March 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Quote Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. When it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution outweighs yours by quite a lot. Sorry.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #159 March 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Quote Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. When it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution outweighs yours by quite a lot. Sorry. Again, that doesn't negate my statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #160 March 1, 2009 Quote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #161 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. You haven't bothered to read Martlet's posts, then? And your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon".If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #162 March 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? Quote Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously. They don't need to. SCOTUS affirmed 2nd amendments rights in Heller. Responding to your posts is becoming a waste of time. If you had read Heller in detail, you would realize that there is no constitutional guarantee that you can have any firearm you want. In fact, the court specifically stated that restrictions are OK. What's your point? SCJ opinions are arbitrary. What holds today may not hold tomorrow. What holds tomorrow, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent 230 years ago. My original statement is still applicable. When it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court's opinion on the Constitution outweighs yours by quite a lot. Sorry. Again, that doesn't negate my statement. No, it just makes it meaningless.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #163 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? It's almost as though you don't have a point, but just argue for the sake of being contrary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #164 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie!If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #165 March 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #166 March 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #167 March 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #168 March 2, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #169 March 2, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Even Scalia (gasp) wrote that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute. I don't see anyone here, other than maybe you, talking about absolutes. So your previous post #154 was an irrelevant red-herring, then. OK, fair enough. We agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to own an "assault weapon". What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? . The same part as the Supreme Court in Heller, I guess. Pity that YOUR interpretation doesn't have the force of law and theirs does. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Heller decision. Scalia wrote that, the flaming liberal commie! Now you're just bringing up points you've already put forth and have already been responded to without being further addressed by you with new information. You're helping to establish my previous statement. Your statement that you know better than the Supreme Court what the Constitution means? Yes, I'm sure we ALL believe that you've established that as a fact. Why don't you write to Scalia and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about? I'm sure you can put him straight. Not only are you establishing that you're arguing simply to be contrary, but that you also lack fundamental reading skills. That wasn't what I stated at all. Really? Your post (#153 in this thread) seems to say exactly that. Then I guess that establishes my previous statement to be accurate. RIF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #170 March 2, 2009 The M4 - it's like Barbie for guys! (and some girls) Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #171 March 2, 2009 Where can I buy one?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #172 March 2, 2009 QuoteWhere can I buy one? Your friendly neighborhood gun shop, of course!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #173 March 2, 2009 Quote Your friendly neighborhood gun shop, of course!! Uhm, not in Westchester County, New York.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #174 March 2, 2009 QuoteQuote Your friendly neighborhood gun shop, of course!! Uhm, not in Westchester County, New York. Hmm... that sucks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martlet 0 #175 March 2, 2009 QuoteQuote Your friendly neighborhood gun shop, of course!! Uhm, not in Westchester County, New York. Sure you can. There are tons of pre-ban models floating around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
