Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

NO typo, too quick on the spelling checker. I have to admit there are a lot of "woods" here in the metro Atlanta area. More than Pee O ria anyway.

You need a SPELL CHECKER to spell enema????

Nuff said

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

You need a SPELL CHECKER to spell enema????

Nuff said

I don't type per se, I peck and even when I'm not in a hurry I frequently hit the wrong key. My browser has a spell checker which underlines misspelled words.
It's often faster to right click the misspelled and choose one of the options given than retype the word. If I do it too quickly it's easy to choose the wrong correction. Even though had I stopped to look at it I might have known it was the wrong choice.

Have you ever tried posting some facts? Or are lies and OP typos/misspelling all you got?

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

I don't type per se, I peck and even when I'm not in a hurry I frequently hit the wrong key. My browser has a spell checker which underlines misspelled words.
It's often faster to right click the misspelled and choose one of the options given than retype the word. If I do it too quickly it's easy to choose the wrong correction. Even though had I stopped to look at it I might have known it was the wrong choice.

Thank you for that heartfelt explanation. Could you possibly elaborate? You know, to justify yourself even more adequately. That would be just great. Thanks in advance.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

Thank you for that heartfelt explanation. Could you possibly elaborate? You know, to justify yourself even more adequately. That would be just great. Thanks in advance.

My apologies Thunderpussy, I should have known to keep it extremely brief. What with your short attention span and all. Bored with OUR politics again yet?

 

[ammo]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Since the purpose of the second amendment is to protect the population from the government then the weaponry allowed must be capable to that end. In order to be 'reasonable' we need a point of reference. Let's use the police, why should "peace officers" be allowed to carry something that law abiding citizens are not? (edit:didn't see your post Lucrum, guess i should have refreshed)

They shouldn't be, what good does it do to have a single shot rifle when the police have swat teams with M4's.. none. We don't want to live in a police state now do we? For the nth time the 2nd is not for hunting/sport etc, it is for keeping the govt in check, and protecting yourself. Now brass or whoever will come along and say you can't have what the military does, and that is true, but it is irrelevant. The military can't be used against the population without a total breakdown of our federal govt. laws can be passed to completely undermine the second amendment however, laws like limiting ammunition or the number of firearms one may own. These laws would do nothing to stop things like the Aurora shooting from happening, but I'm sure they would allow for confiscation of law abiding citizens weaponry, whenever they get 'caught' breaking them. That IS a bad thing even though it's obvious that's what the left wants.


My opinion, full auto rifles should be legal, and carrying laws should be more lax. Sure background checks and training courses should be mandatory. I'm guessing most of this stuff is already on the books but I am not that familiar with gun laws. Owning a gun can't do you much good if it isn't on your person or nearby.

if carrying laws were more lax , 7 or 8 people in the theater would have taken out the aurora shooter,knowing that, he, or any criminal might think twice, crime would go down as long as the majority of the population were decent people, we know the criminals are going to be carrying, the police can't be everywhere,we should not be denied the need/right to defend ourselves

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from ammo:

...we should not be denied the need/right to defend ourselves

And that is EXACTLY what the bleeding heart liberals want to do.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ammo:

if carrying laws were more lax , 7 or 8 people in the theater would have taken out the aurora shooter,knowing that, he, or any criminal might think twice, crime would go down as long as the majority of the population were decent people, we know the criminals are going to be carrying, the police can't be everywhere,we should not be denied the need/right to defend ourselves

geeze. do you people only think in black and white? you want a bunch of people in a dark theater shooting from all directions?
have you watched too many cowboy movies where the bullet never hits the innocent bystander in the background?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Free Thinker:

geeze. do you people only think in black and white? you want a bunch of people in a dark theater shooting from all directions?
have you watched too many cowboy movies where the bullet never hits the innocent bystander in the background?

You're obviously right numb nuts, it's much better to have only the one shooter shooting at the crown of unarmed citizens. Jeezus H Christ you're a moron.

 

[Spike Trader]

Quote from Free Thinker:

geeze. do you people only think in black and white? you want a bunch of people in a dark theater shooting from all directions?
have you watched too many cowboy movies where the bullet never hits the innocent bystander in the background?

Yeah , and the first instinct when gunshots are heard is to hit the deck or get away.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Spiker:

Yeah , and the first instinct when gunshots are heard is to hit the deck or get away.

That really depends on the person hearing them.