Search results

Your interpretation is nicely aligned with Justice Scalia's interpretation which is based on "originalism". If you haven't done it yet, you would no doubt like to read The Heller Opinion in regard to the extensive discussion of the prefatory clause. I certainly am not one to champion the...

No. I stand by exactly what I wrote. I disassociate myself from your interpretation of what I wrote.

I concur with your post bone. However it's only fair that you know that I do know something about guns, my first gun was a single shot White Powder Wonder but eventually I graduated to my Dad's Remington Model 33 and a beautiful Winchester 22 long with octagonal barrel and a peep sight. What a...

Your reading of Heller is exactly as mine. you are ready to go forth into the gun control debate armed with the facts of the current law.

When you say government, I'm sure you mean those in government that make the decisions to do the things we like and don't like, our legislatures, courts and executives, in other words. I don't Trust those who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy any more than the next person. I recognize...

That's absolutely correct according to nearly everyone's reading of history, including the Court. But as you know, we already ban from private ownership those arms, not to mention weapons, that would be most useful, say, for opposing tyranny from within. Hence any argument based on our...

The germane question currently is can the government ban assault rifles, large magazines, certain types of ammunition, and certain other semiautomatic weapon? I think I know what the answer will be. It would be a mistake to think that either Miller or Heller closed the door to that possibility...

If we give up our guns, will our winters get colder?

Jem. I tried to save you the trouble of hunting down the relevant passages in the 64 page opinion by quoting them directly. which I did. You can find out what page they appear on by typing them into Google. The opinion is not going to mention specific brands, such as AR-15. You know that of...

There is only one proper place for you. Stand up comedy! _________________ P.S. Thank you so much, ETcallhome, for all the tears you've brought to my eyes as I broke down in hysterics. We need more humor in this world; your kind of gentle humor!

:D:D:D

not to mention avoiding war!!!!!!!

You are the new Yogi! Wonderful!

Ha ha ha... well done!

Three cheers for your #1 and #2! I'm not so enthusiastic about the language of the latter part of your post, though I try to understand the sentiment expressed.

Yes, I will happily elaborate here. In a very recent case the 4th Circuit Appeals Court Struck down a State ban on Assault Weapons on the grounds that such weapons were in common use. In Justice Breyer's dissent in Heller, Breyer notes the problem attendant to the "common use" distinction cited...

Jem, get a grip. What I wrote is simply a distillation of what the court said. I'm not arguing with the court, you are. Read the decision for god sake and cut out this nonsense. I have already quoted some relevant sections of the decision. I'm not going to repeat all of it it because I'm...

not according to Scalia. He doesn't say what a tank is per se, but it is clear that it isn't the arms being talked about in the second amendment. Scalia does draw a distinction between ordinance and arms. ( a cannon for example is ordinance, I think). I wish everyone would take the couple...

You either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't comprehend it. I made no argument for myself at all. What you claim I did is impossible. I simply summarized some of Scalia's arguments, and not all of them by any means. His opinion is more than 60 pages long!!!. You may read his arguments...

I believe he did in the end. His inalienable argument is very strong though some will object because it is based on English law. What Heller does not do is prevent government from banning certain types of firearms. Scalia speaks directly to this issue in his majority opinion. Until, or...